//
[2006] VSC 389
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of Victoria
2006-10-20
OSBORN J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Application to strike out parts of affidavit - power to strike out irrelevant material in the management of the Valuation Compensation and Planning List - test to be applied - appropriate directions - Rule 8.05(2)(b) of Chapter II of the Rules of Court
Introduction
1 The proceeding founding the applications before the Court is constituted by a disputed claim for compensation with respect to the compulsory acquisition of part of land owned by the respondent Mr Love ("the claimant"). Such land now forms part of the Hume Highway Craigieburn bypass. ("The bypass compensation proceeding").
2 The primary application now made is one by Roads Corporation ("the authority") to strike out parts of the principal affidavit sworn and filed in the bypass compensation proceeding by the claimant.
3 Further subsidiary applications have been made by both parties for directions as to the future conduct of the bypass compensation proceeding.
4 The claimant challenges the validity of the compulsory acquisition giving rise to the bypass compensation proceeding by way of another proceeding in this Court[1] ("the invalidity proceeding"). The parties to the invalidity proceeding include those to the bypass compensation proceeding but extend to a number of other persons whose actions the claimant seeks to impugn.
5 The claimant also challenges the validity of the refusal of a planning permit for a quarry upon his land ("the quarry permit proceeding").[2]
6 Further, there are now disputed claims before the Court in two other proceedings relating to further portions of land acquired from the claimant adjacent to the alignments of Cooper Street and O'Herns Road respectively, being the southern and northern boundaries of the claimant's land.[3]
7 The bypass compensation proceeding has already had a complex procedural history which it is unnecessary to record in full save to note that it was previously set down for trial on 2 October 2006 but that date was vacated by me.
The Claim
8 In the bypass compensation proceeding the claimant claims the market value of his interest in the acquired land (including any loss attributable to severance; disturbance (as to part), depreciation, and any special value to the respondent) assessed on a "before and after" basis. It is claimed the before value of the claimant's land as a whole including improvements was $26,920,000, and the after value was $9,065,000, giving rise to a claim of $17,855,000.
9 The claimant also makes a disturbance claim with respect to the loss of a series of items of agricultural infrastructure, Clonard Homestead and other expenses totalling $890,916. He further claims legal valuation and other professional expenses, solatium, and interest.
10 The most significant component of the claim in monetary terms is that for the loss in value of a parcel of land containing a potential stone resource and land fill.
11 It is contended that parcel had a before value of $14,000,000 and an after value of $2,765,000. Further, it is said that this is a provisional estimate only and the full value of the stone resource requires further evaluation following the completion of further geological investigation.
12 The authority disputes that the highest and best use of the acquired land was for the purpose of a quarry. It contends the highest and best use of such land was for future industrial development.
13 It is common ground that prior to the acquisition the claimant applied for a permit for extractive industry for some 82 hectares of his land, all of which was zoned rural (permit application No. 7047078). It is also common ground that this permit application was referred by the Minister for Planning to an independent panel, which considered the application and recommended that a planning permit be issued for land to the west of a gas pipeline traversing the land containing and proposed quarries from north to south, and subject to a number of conditions limiting the extent and duration of the extractive industry.
14 The case for the authority is that, at the relevant date if there had been no bypass scheme then:
(a) the eastern portion of the claimant's land would have been zoned rural;
(b) a permit would have issued for extractive industry for the area as recommended by the panel;
(c) the permit conditions would have been in accordance with the panel's recommendations; and
(d) no permit would have issued for extractive industry in respect of the land east of the gas pipeline.
15 The claimant contends that but for the bypass proposal, a quarry permit would have issued in accordance with its permit application for a substantially greater area than that recommended by the panel and that the conditions imposed upon it would not have been those imposed by the panel. The claimant contends that these conditions were firstly, unjustified on the planning merits and secondly, in themselves a product (at least in significant part) of the freeway proposal. In particular it is said that the substantial zoning for industrial purposes of the adjoining land to the east of the subject land was effected in part by reason of the freeway proposal and that both the freeway proposal and this zoning should therefore be disregarded in formulating the conditions which would have been imposed if hypothetically a permit were granted in the absence of the freeway proposal.[4]
16 There is also a dispute as to whether quarry use of the land would in any event have been regarded as economically viable by a hypothetical purchaser as at the relevant date. The authority has filed and served affidavit material asserting that it would not.
17 A relevant circumstance bearing on this question is whether the gas pipeline traversing the proposed quarry site could have been relocated to the eastern boundary of the proposed extractive area and if so at what cost. The authority proposes to file and serve additional affidavit material bearing on such costs and relevant consequences.
18 The claimant's affidavit was described in closing submissions by his counsel as follows:
"(1) It covers the entire relevant history of Mr Love's (and his family's) ownership of the land including a detailed chronological history of the principally relevant years to the assessment of compensation. This is in the period from approximately 1996 when the F2 investigation, reservation and acquisition process began to the taking of possession of Mr Love's land in 2003. In this period, the precise history of events is critical to understanding how Mr Love contends his land (and hence its value) has been adversely impacted by the F2 proposal.
(2) During this period several simultaneous events occurred which are also relevant to Mr Love's claims in respect of the invalidity of the acquisition and his alternative claims for compensation.
(3) The affidavit summarises these events from Mr Love's perspective and also contains the relevant documentary evidence from the key events which occurred over this period from the best evidence available to Mr Love at the time it was sworn."
19 It was further submitted that the documents exhibited to the affidavit, although relatively voluminous and comprised in "19 folders", were condensed from approximately 70 folders of far more extensive material.
20 The authority objects to the claimant's affidavit essentially on the basis that it is said in large part to go to irrelevant matters. It submits that the consequence is to create a series of unmanageable documents comprising an affidavit of 193 pages containing 524 paragraphs and 19 folders of exhibits. It further submits that because in proceedings of this kind, the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties define the issues between them, irrelevant issues should not be permitted to be raised, if the trial of the matter is to be efficient and effective. It draws attention to the fact that both the affidavit itself and the submissions of counsel acknowledge that it goes to matters which are relevant to claims other than those raised in this proceeding.
21 The claimant contends that the extent of the material is a product of a complicated and interwoven series of relevant events, and the claimant's direct continuing involvement in them.
22 Ultimately the test of admissibility must simply be that of relevance. The manageability of the documents may be able to be addressed in various ways, including the preparation of court books of core documents.
23 The relevance of impugned parts of the affidavit is further to be determined on the basis that this is a pre-trial application. Moreover, it is one in which the affidavit material as a whole has not been finalised. It will be sufficient at this stage if the impugned material in the claimant's affidavit may at trial be relevant to the issues between the parties.
24 It is not, however, necessary for the authority to show that the material is both scandalous and irrelevant.[5] The powers given to manage the Valuation, Compensation and Planning List pursuant to rule 8.05(2)(b) of chapter II of the Rules of Court, enable this Court to embark on a pre-trial assessment of relevance of affidavit material in proceedings of this type.
Bases of Relevance
25 I turn then to the affidavit. There are six principal bases of relevance to which I shall refer in dealing with the objections. I shall briefly elaborate the sense in which I will use each of them.
**"**Invalidity"
26 The claimant asserts that the acquisition of his land was invalid and of no legal effect. The affidavit refers in part to the factual matrix associated with the circumstances of the rezoning of the acquired land and the subsequent acquisition itself. Insofar as the facts go to questions of the validity of the acquisition only and not to other valuation issues I shall refer to them as relevant to "invalidity".
**"**Planning Background"
27 The valuation issues between the parties fall to be determined in part by reference to a complex contextual background. It is arguable that that background may assist in the interpretation of statements of planning policy and other documents relevant to the assessment of the highest and best use of the land. It is also arguable that that background may bear on the probabilities with respect to facts that are in issue.
"****Pointe Gourde Principles"
28 The resolution of the application of the Pointe Gourde principle[6] to the highest and best use of the land, requires the ascertainment of all relevant steps in the implementation of the freeway proposal and all relevant consequential effects upon the subject land both direct and indirect (including in particular the status of the adjoining land to the east).
**"**Highest and Best Use"
29 The affidavit also addresses the history of quarry and land fill operations upon the claimant's land, the sequence of development, modifications to the land (including the implementation of landscaping) and the basis of asserted special value to the claimant by reason of the history of use of the land.
**"**Planning Status"
30 The introduction of a new format planning scheme during the relevant period leading up to the acquisition, gave rise to questions as to the planning status of existing extractive use rights affecting the claimant's land.
**"**Solatium"
31 The affidavit tells the claimant's story as to his experience of the events leading up to, involved in and resulting from the compulsory acquisition. Insofar as it recites the experience of acquisition as well as the ultimate effects of such acquisition upon the claimant personally, it is in my view potentially relevant to solatium.
The Claimant's Affidavit
32 I shall deal with the objections seriatim.
Paragraph 3
33 This paragraph asserts that the contents of the affidavit are relevant both to this proceeding and other "inter-related" proceedings. It is strictly speaking irrelevant to this proceeding. Furthermore, relevance is not to be established by assertion of the claimant.
Paragraph 12
34 The location and title history of the Scanlan property are relevant to invalidity, planning history and Pointe Gourde principles. As I indicated during the course of argument, however, the claimant's solicitors should prepare an index to Exhibit TJL 20 in order to facilitate its use.
Paragraphs 33-35
35 Planning history of proposed extractive industry upon the subject land, relevant to special value and solatium.
Paragraphs 36-37
36 History of agreement in 1973 between Pioneer Quarries (Vic.) Pty Ltd and Shire of Whittlesea as to partial construction of Cooper Street is irrelevant.
Paragraphs 55-57
37 History of tree plantations of the subject land relevant to conditions of hypothetical planning approval, highest and best use, special value and solatium.
Paragraphs 94-97
38 History of City of Whittlesea draft general plan and claimant's submissions with respect to extractive industry, relevant to solatium.
Paragraphs 98, 99 and 101
39 History of submissions fighting for extractive industry with respect to the Epping bulge position statement, relevant to solatium.
Paragraph 100
40 Irrelevant newspaper advertisement.
Paragraphs 103, 104, 105 and 106
41 Cooper Street precinct strategy history. Planning background evidence and relevant to solatium.[7]
Paragraph 109
42 Irrelevant letter to neighbour.
Paragraph 116
43 Further title history of 360 Cooper Street. Relevant to planning history background and invalidity.
Paragraphs 117-120
44 Correspondence between claimant and the Minister for Roads and Ports, relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraph 124
45 Process of the first advisory committee, relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraphs 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 133
46 History of amendment L143 relevant as planning background and in relation to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraphs 134-138
47 Material relating to relationship of City of Whittlesea with various quarry operators, relevant to invalidity.
Paragraphs 148, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163, 169 and 170
48 Material relating to the history of amendment L143. Evidence relevant to planning background, invalidity and Pointe Gourde principles.
Paragraphs 174, 175, 176, 177, 182, 183, 184, 185 and 186
49 History of alignment process, relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraphs 187 and 190
50 History of amendment L143 relevant to planning background, invalidity and Pointe Gourde principles.
Paragraph 188
51 History of alignment, relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Exhibit TJL 152
52 Exhibit TJL 152 appears to be a draft document containing extensive handwritten annotations in an unknown hand. It is excluded as irrelevant subject to further evidence as to its origin, purpose and effect.
Paragraph 194
53 Letter to Premier, relevant to planning history and solatium.
Paragraph 196
54 Advisory committee timetable comprised in TJL 159 irrelevant.
Paragraph 197
55 Submission made to the VPP panel on behalf of claimant relevant to planning history, and solatium. Includes plan of areas then proposed for extraction.
Paragraphs 198, 199, 200
56 Procedural history of quarry permit application call-in, relevant as planning background and with respect to solatium.
Paragraph 201
57 Objection withdrawn.
Paragraphs 206, 207
58 Objection not pressed.
Paragraph 208
59 Deponent's belief as to the meaning of document is irrelevant.
Paragraph 209
60 Location of objectors relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 210
61 Background material relating to quarry permit process relevant as such.
Paragraphs 211, 212, 213
62 Objections withdrawn.
Paragraph 214
63 Extract from Whittlesea Post objectionable as hearsay.
Paragraph 216
64 Advertising of quarry permit application relevant as incidental planning background.
Paragraph 217
65 City of Whittlesea media release relevant to planning background to Cooper Street widening.
Paragraph 219
66 Objection not pressed.
Paragraph 220
City of Whittlesea letter concerning Cooper Street upgrade incidental to planning background.
Paragraph 221
67 Extract from Whittlesea Post 15 July 1998 objectionable as hearsay.
Paragraph 222
68 Letter of Minister for Planning relating to amendment L143 relevant to planning background and solatium. (Relates to TJL 157, see paragraph 194 above).
Paragraph 223
69 Residents' working group objection to the quarry permit relevant as planning background.
Paragraphs 224, 225, 226
70 Public agitation by Haermeyer relating to the quarry permit relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 227
71 The quarry permit panel timetable is irrelevant.
Paragraph 229
72 Copy advice by City of Whittlesea to Minister for Planning of resolution of 4 August 1998 and of notice to claimant, together with copy Council minutes, relevant planning background and relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 230
73 Extract from Whittlesea Post 12 August 1998 objectionable as hearsay.
Paragraph 231
74 Submission by Haermeyer to quarry permit panel relevant to planning background and invalidity.
Paragraphs 232, 233
75 Statements by Haermeyer to Legislative Assembly relevant to invalidity, subject to questions of parliamentary privilege.
Paragraph 234
76 Copy letter dated 2 September 1998 and ministerial briefing dated 31 August 1998 relevant to planning background and invalidity.
Paragraph 235
77 Objection not pressed.
Paragraph 237, 238
78 Herald Sun article 20 November 1998 objectionable as hearsay.
Paragraph 239
79 Sunday Herald Sun article 27 September 1998 objectionable as hearsay.
Paragraph 240
80 Ministerial briefing 5 October 1998 relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 243
81 Not pressed.
Paragraphs 244-246
82 VicRoads documentation relating to route alignments for the bypass relevant to solatium and validity.
Paragraph 247
83 Hansard 10 November 1998 relevant to invalidity subject to questions of parliamentary privilege.
Paragraph 249
84 Letter of Scanlan dated 24 November 1998 to Minister McLellan relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 251
85 Claimant's submission to first advisory committee relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraph 252
86 Letter of claimant to the Gas Transmission Corporation 7 January 1999 self-serving and irrelevant.
Paragraph 253
87 Letter of City of Whittlesea to the claimant concerning new format planning scheme relevant to history of extractive industry on the claimant's land and planning status of such land.
Paragraph 254
88 Letter of claimant to Minister for Planning 22 January 1999 relevant to planning background and solatium.
Paragraph 256
89 Ministerial briefing concerning freeway alignment and call-in relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 257
90 Letter from claimant's consultant 24 February 1999 concerning quarry permit application and existing use rights under VPP scheme, relevant to planning background and solatium.
Paragraph 258
91 Objection not pressed.
Paragraph 259
92 Correspondence relating to Council meeting of 30 March 1999 relevant as planning background.
Paragraph 260
93 Hansard 6 May 1999 relevant to invalidity subject to questions of parliamentary privilege.
Paragraph 261
94 Letter of Scanlan dated 9 May 1999 relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 262
95 Letter 17 May 1999 from VicRoads to Scanlan relevant to history of freeway alignment and to invalidity.
Paragraphs 263-264
96 Copy submission to first advisory committee relevant to solatium and invalidity.
Paragraphs 265-266
97 Material relating to transitional permits and the history of planning status of the land.
Paragraph 267
98 Summary of issues raised by the claimant before the first advisory committee relevant to solatium and invalidity.
Paragraph 268
99 Letter 7 July 1999 from the Minister for Planning advising approval of new format planning scheme relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 270
100 Objection not pursued.
Paragraph 271
101 Change of Government relevant to planning background and invalidity.
Paragraph 272
102 Letter of claimant's consultant to Minister for Planning regarding quarry permit application relevant to solatium.
Paragraphs 273-280
103 Copy of first advisory committee report and summary of such report insofar as it affected the claimant's land, relevant to planning background, solatium and invalidity.
Paragraph 283
104 Letter 4 November 1999 from City of Whittlesea regarding quarry permit application relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 284
105 Commentary on letter to the Minister for Planning objectionable as irrelevant and/or stating a planning opinion.
Paragraph 285
106 Further commentary which is irrelevant to the issues between the parties.
Paragraph 288
107 Letter of Scanlan 11 November 1999 relevant to planning background and to invalidity.
Paragraphs 289-291
108 Objections not pressed.
Paragraph 292
109 Ministerial briefing concerning quarry permit application relevant to planning background.
Paragraph 293
110 Conceded on behalf of claimant to contain irrelevant comment.
Paragraph 294
111 Ministerial briefing relating to first advisory committee recommendation relevant to planning background and to invalidity.
Paragraph 298
112 Media release 1 December 1999 concerning quarry permit refusal, relevant to solatium and planning background.
Paragraph 299
113 Briefing of 3 December 1999 to Minister for Planning relevant to process of acquisition, solatium and invalidity.
Paragraph 300
114 Letter 10 December 1999 from claimant's consultant to City of Whittlesea relevant to history of planning status of land.
Paragraph 301
115 Statement by Haermeyer 15 December 1999 relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 302
116 Letter 18 January 2000 of Haermeyer relevant to invalidity.
Paragraphs 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 314
117 Documentation relating to inter-departmental working party review of freeway alignment relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 305
118 Relevant to planning status of land.
Paragraph 310
119 Irrelevant notes of discussion concerning Cooper Street duplication.
Paragraphs 315, 316
120 History of alignment shift process relevant to solatium and invalidity.
Paragraphs 317, 318, 319, 321
121 Alignment documents relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 322
122 Compost facility letter relevant to highest and best use.
Paragraphs 323, 324
123 Communications relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 325
124 Instructions for FOI applications relevant to solatium.
Paragraphs 326, 327, 328
125 Communications relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 330
126 Objection not pressed.
Paragraphs 331, 335
127 Communications relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 336
128 Appointment of second advisory committee relevant to solatium.
Paragraphs 353, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 366
129 History of the second advisory committee relevant as planning background, and to solatium and invalidity.
Paragraph 361
130 Objection not pressed.
Paragraph 367-370
131 Summary of second advisory committee's report potentially of assistance to the Court.
Paragraphs 371, 373, 374, 377
132 Ministerial assessment documentation relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 376
133 Objection not pressed.
Exhibit TJL 298
134 VicRoads correspondence log relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 372
135 Transfer to Northpoint Enterprises relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 378
136 FOI requests relevant to solatium and costs claim.
Paragraph 380
137 Herald Sun article irrelevant.
Paragraph 381
138 Hansard relevant to invalidity subject to questions of parliamentary privilege.
Paragraphs 382, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388
139 Amendment C23 documents relevant to invalidity.
Paragraph 397
140 Letter 25 October 2001 Minister for Planning to claimant's solicitor relevant to invalidity and solatium.
Paragraphs 400, 429
141 Request to rezone balance Epping development land relevant to invalidity and Pointe Gourde principles.
Paragraph 401
142 Cooper Street acquisition documents relevant to valuation issues.
Paragraphs 430, 431, 437, 438, 439
143 Correspondence concerning alignment relevant to solatium.
Paragraph 432
144 Copy of writ instituting proceeding No. 5986 of 2002 relevant to solatium.
Paragraph 442
145 Ministerial briefing relevant to invalidity.
Paragraphs 449, 457, 458-9, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485-7, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493-4, 495, 496, 497-500, 501, 503, 504, 512
146 Copy documentation relating to the acquisition validity proceeding being No. 4504 of 2003, irrelevant in this proceeding.
Paragraphs 463 and 507-8
147 Documents relating to the acquisition of Cooper Street land relevant to valuation issues and solatium.
Paragraphs 464, 467
148 Documents relating to the O'Herns Road overpass relevant to valuation issues and solatium.
Paragraph 465
149 Cattle promotion sheet relevant to solatium.
Conclusion as to Claimant's Affidavit
150 It follows from the above reasons that the following parts of the affidavit of the claimant sworn 19 February 2006 will be struck out:
• Paragraph 3
• Paragraphs 36 - 37
• Paragraph 100
• Paragraph 109
• Exhibit TJL 152
• Paragraph 196; TJL 159
• Paragraph 208
• Paragraph 214
• Paragraph 221
• Paragraph 227
• Paragraph 230
• Paragraph 237, 238
• Paragraph 239
• Paragraph 252
• Paragraph 284
• Paragraph 285
• Paragraph 293
• Paragraph 310
• Paragraph 380
• Paragraphs 449, 457, 458-9, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485-7, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493-4, 495, 496, 497-500, 501, 503, 504, 512
Further Directions
151 Both parties seek further directions in the matter and I shall deal with such directions generally within the framework put forward on behalf of the authority.
Geologist's Report
152 The authority seeks an order that the time for the geologist's experts to report to the Court fixed by order made 4 August 2006 be extended to 4.00 p.m. Thursday 26 October 2006.
153 There remains some uncertainty as to the availability of the experts, and I have come to the view that the time should be extended to 4.00 p.m. on 3 November 2006. I recognise that the geologists' report may not by that date be final, in the sense that it may recommend further site investigations, but it is desirable that the geologists define areas of agreement and disagreement as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The Gas Pipeline
154 The authority seeks an order that any affidavit as to the cost of relocating the high pressure gas pipeline to be relied upon by the authority be filed and served by 1 December 2006. I will so direct.
Further Objections to Affidavits
155 The authority seeks a direction as to the filing and serving of lists of further objections to the admissibility of the affidavits of witnesses other than Mr Love. I do not propose to make such a direction at this point in time. It is apparent that the affidavit material may undergo substantial revision and that the issues may be further refined. It is inappropriate to set a date for the filing and serving of lists of objections at this point in time.
Further Affidavits
156 The authority proposes an order that any further affidavit from its valuers be filed and served by 15 December 2006. I do not propose to make this order. It seems to me that it is predicated upon a pre-judgment as to what will be necessary to respond adequately to the report by the geologists.
Notices of Contention
157 Both parties support the exchange of notices of contention. It seems to me, however, that it is premature to order that such notices be exchanged at this point in time. It is entirely possible that the evidence as to relocation of the high pressure gas pipeline and the further geological evidence will require some substantial revision and refinement of the parties' positions.
Mediation
158 I propose to order that the proceeding be referred to mediation before Michael Wright QC on or before 31 March 2007. This date accommodates the time which the claimant asserts will be necessary to satisfactorily undertake further on-site drilling and respond to the results of such drilling.
Fixing for Trial
159 I do not propose to refix the matter for trial at this point in time.
• The affidavit evidence is still in the process of resolution. It has not reached that state of finality which had previously been anticipated would be the case by this date.
• The underlying issue of whether the proceeding should proceed prior to the invalidity proceeding requires re-evaluation in all the circumstances which now obtain.
160 In my view the invalidity issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved in this proceeding and are properly the subject of the separate proceeding instituted by the claimant. The process of addressing the claimant's affidavit in this proceeding has incidentally demonstrated the very high desirability of resolving the invalidity issues by reference to pleadings. Both parties have conceded as much during the course of argument before me.
161 Further, it is apparent that as a matter of logic the invalidity proceedings should proceed either before or conterminously with the bypass compensation claim.
162 If the bypass compensation claim were to proceed prior to the invalidity proceeding, it is now apparent the compensation proceeding would occupy a considerable part of the Court's time and resources. It is not possible to confidently resolve the difference between the authority's estimate of six weeks and the claimant's estimate of up to six months. Further, such a hearing would impose considerable cost and stress upon the parties, in circumstances where it is plain the claimant will proceed with the invalidity claim whatever the outcome of the compensation claim, and the result of the invalidity claim may render the outcome of the compensation claim nugatory.
163 The authority submits that the bypass compensation proceeding should not be stayed pending the hearing of the invalidity proceeding. It submits that such a stay is likely to be lengthy and that it will result in unfair prejudice to the authority both with respect to questions of interest and costs and also potentially with respect to the effective conduct of the compensation proceeding. There are I think three answers to this submission at this point in time:
• The claimant does not at this point make application for a stay, and I do not propose to order one.
• It is arguable circumstances have materially changed since the question of a stay was last ventilated before the Court.[8]
• The appropriateness of any stay cannot be prejudged but must be determined at the time application is made for it.
164 The claimant seeks an order that his application pursuant to r.9.12 of the Rules of Court be adjourned to a directions hearing on 8 December 2006. It is disputed by the authority that a valid application has previously been made pursuant to r.9.12 but putting this to one side, it is in my view appropriate that I order that any application made in this proceeding pursuant to r.9.12 be heard on 8 December 2006. Likewise it is appropriate to adjourn the application to fix a trial date until 8 December next.
Murdesk
165 The claimant seeks access to certain documentation from proceeding 5064 of 2003 in which Murdesk Investments Pty Ltd is the claimant. It seems likely this question can be resolved without orders of the Court and I shall take no further steps at this point in relation to that application.
Liberty to Apply
166 I will reserve liberty to apply and adjourn the matter for further directions to 8 December 2006. If it becomes apparent that the matter cannot be expected to be satisfactorily resolved in the time available on that directions day, I shall endeavour to fix a special directions day prior to the end of the year.
[1] Proceeding No. 4504 of 2003.
[2] Proceeding No. 5986 of 2002.
[3] Proceeding Nos. 10146 of 2005 and 10147 of 2005.
[4] This involves the application of the "Pointe Gourde principle": Haig v The Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) 85 LGERA 143 at 149; see also: Mt Lawley Pty Ltd v WAPC [2004] WASC 149; King v Minister for Planning and Housing [1993] VicRp 11; [1993] 1 VR 159 at 183.
[5] Cf rule 27.97 of chapter I of the Rules of Court.
[6] Above n4.
[7] The objection to paragraph 105 was not pressed.
[8] The claimant's solicitor has identified the following alleged changes in circumstances:
(a) The trial date fixed for 2 October 2006 has been vacated;
(b) On 5 September 2006 Mr Love filed and served a summons and affidavit in support exhibiting a proposed amended statement of claim in the acquisition validity proceeding;
(c) Both parties have indicated an intention to file further expert reports in particular geological, gas pipeline and valuation evidence;
(d) Mr Love has indicated that he intends to seek determination of validity issues in the bypass compensation proceeding if it is not to be heard after, or at the same time as the acquisition validity proceeding; and
(e) The bypass compensation proceeding is no longer ready for trial.
Roads Corporation
Love [2006] VSC 389
(1974) 85 LGERA 143