Experience
- Extensive experience in all aspects of compulsory land acquisition, advising and representing a number of government authorities in relation to claims for compensation under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (LACA 1986), the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 (MTPFA 2009) and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act 1987), including appearing in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Australia and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
- Presently acts for the Department of Transport and Planning (formerly Roads Corporation) in respect of claims for compensation under the LACA 1986 and the P&E Act 1987, including Supreme Court and VCAT litigation. Julie has been retained in a number of road projects and continues to provide advice to the Department of Transport and Planning on a range of acquisition related matters.
Some of the projects Julie has been involved in for the Department of Transport and Planning (formerly Roads Corporation) are:
> Pakenham Bypass
> Monash – Citylink – Westgate Freeway upgrade (M1)
> Geelong Ring Road
> Anthonys Cutting
> Hume Freeway/Donnybrook Road Interchange
> Deer Park Bypass
> Outer Metropolitan Ring Road/E6 Corridor
> Clyde Road Duplication
> Koo Wee Rup Bypass
> Outer Suburban Arterial Roads Project (OSAR)
- Acted on behalf of Roads Corporation in the matter of Plunkett v Roads Corporation [2019] VSC 39, where the Authority successfully argued that “sale of land” in sections 99 and 106 of the P&E Act 1987 means “completion of the contract of sale” [rather than entry into the contract of sale].
- Currently acts for the Department of Transport and Planning in Head, Transport for Victoria v Lantrak Developments Pty Ltd in which the Court summarily dismissed a claim for disturbance loss under s 41(1)(d) of the LACA 1986 in excess of $35m and found that the Authority was not obliged to make an offer of compensation to an occupier of the acquired land under s 31(1) of the LACA 1986, and that time should not be extended for the occupier to make a claim under s 37(1). The Court found that on a proper construction of s 31(1) of the LACA 1986, where the acquiring authority is unaware at the date of acquisition of a claimant’s interest in the land, the claimant is not entitled to receive an offer under s 31. The Court found that a person in that position could claim compensation under s 37 of the LACA 1986.
- Currently acts for the acquiring authority in the West Gate Tunnel Project (WGTP), providing advice relating to land acquisition and compensation matters associated with the Project, as well as engaging and instructing consultants, advising on relevant sections of the MTPFA 2009, the LACA 1986, the P&E Act 1987, Crown (Reserves) Act 1978, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and other property related issues connected with the Project, as well as representing WGTP in dispute resolution and litigation matters.
- Acted for the then Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) in respect of the cancelled East West Link Project (Eastern Section), providing legal and strategic advice on land acquisition and compensation matters associated with the Project, including claims for compensation (both freehold and leasehold interests (residential/commercial)) as well as providing advice on the cancelled Project including the lifting of the “deemed” reservation of the Project area and the sale of the acquired land, including the buy back/lease back offers.
- As part of the cancelled Project Julie acted on behalf of the Secretary in the Supreme Court (and High Court) matter of Provan’s Timber Pty Ltd v Secretary to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources which was a dispute concerning the assessment of a number of interests in land, the entitlement to compensation and the basis for calculating compensation. The Honourable Justice Emerton held that the occupier of the land had a limited interest in the form of a tenancy terminable at will and was entitled to compensation for disturbance loss under s.41(1)(d) of the LACA 1986, for relocation costs in the amount of $2,871,000 in consequence of the divestment of its interest in the land on the basis that it was in occupation of the land at the date of acquisition. The Secretary successfully appealed Her Honour’s decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the compensation amount of $2.871 million awarded to the occupier was not a faithful reflection of the diminution or divestment of the ‘insubstantial leasehold interest’ it held as a tenant at will and that compensation awarded for disturbance loss cannot be divorced from the interest in land that is diminished or divested. Their Honours did not consider that the relocation costs incurred by the occupier could be viewed as the ‘natural, direct and reasonable consequence’ of the divestment of its interest in the land. The Provan’s Companies issued an application for special leave to the High Court of Australia seeking to appeal from the Court of Appeal’s judgment, with the Secretary successfully opposing the application and the High Court dismissing the application with costs.
- Acted on behalf of the then Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), as the authorised delegate of Melbourne Water Corporation, in respect of claims for compensation involving easement acquisitions and temporary occupation for the Victorian Desalination Project, including the conduct of several hearings in both the Supreme Court and VCAT.
- Currently acts for the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF), the authorised representative of the Assistant Treasurer, in respect of the recent acquisition of the Narre Warren Police Station (June 2022). Julie has also acted for DTF in relation to the Shepparton Courts Upgrade Project and the Lara Prison Precinct expansion. The subject property relating to the Shepparton Courts Upgrade Project was leased by a publicly listed company. Julie’s advice to DTF involves all aspects of the compulsory acquisition process, including preparation of the NOIA, the NOA, liaising with representatives for the registered proprietor and leasehold interests and engaging a range of experts, with the acquisition relating to the Lara Prison Precinct expansion being referred to the Supreme Court for hearing and determination and resolved at mediation.
- Acted for the Urban Renewal Authority Victoria (Places Victoria) in respect of the Revitalising of Central Dandenong Project, including claims for compensation in VCAT, appeals to the Supreme Court and an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia in respect of which the claimant unsuccessfully contended that Places Victoria had acquired his leasehold interest in the subject property despite the notice of acquisition expressly stating the interest in land which had been acquired.