Presently acts for the Department of Transport (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 on a range of acquisition related matters.
Some of the projects Julie has been involved in for the Department of Transport (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 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.
Acted for the 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.