Anthony v Commonwealth

High Court of Australia Walsh J. Anthony v Commonwealth

Judgment reserved.

Jan. 26. Walsh J.

1. The issues in the action.

This is an action to determine the amount of compensation payable to the plaintiff in respect of the compulsory acquisition, in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1966 Cth, of certain land, having an area of a little over 4 acres, situated about 14½ miles from the Post Office at Darwin, on the route of the Stuart Highway. The notice of acquisition was published on 22nd April, 1971. It stated that the public purpose for which the land was acquired was "roadway realignment". The land was part of the land comprised in certificate of title, vol. 2, folio 79. The plaintiff is the executrix of the will of Maxwell McMillan, who was one of four registered proprietors who acquired the land as part of a much larger area in 1942. At the time of his death in 1967 Maxwell McMillan had become; as between himself and the other registered proprietors, the sole owner of the subject land. It is not in dispute between the parties to this action that the plaintiff was at the time of the acquisition and is solely entitled to the land.

The plaintiff's claim is for $6,604, as the value of the land at the relevant date. This claim is based on the evidence of Mr J. J. Doyle, a valuer, who was called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. The disputes between the parties are confined to disputes as to the effect which should be given in valuing the land to the presence on it of several improvements or works. At the date of acquisition, it had on it, under it or above it (1) a section of the Stuart Highway; (2) a section of a water pipeline of 12 inch diameter and its supports; (3) a section of a water pipeline of 15 inch diameter and its supports; (4) a section of an electrical power line; and (5) a section of a telephone line. There is no dispute as to the value which should be placed on the land if none of those works existed. Mr Doyle estimated this at $332 and that figure is not challenged. The claim of the plaintiff is that the land must be valued with all those improvements or structures and that the method to be adopted is to add to the unimproved value the several amounts which it would have cost at the date of acquisition to establish the improvements or structures, less a deduction for obsolescence or depreciation. The defendant contends that, for various reasons, none of the improvements or structures ought to be taken into account in making a valuation for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Alternatively, it contends that any additional value to be attributed to the land because of any improvement that ought to be taken into account is not to be measured in the manner adopted by Mr Doyle, but by reference to other factors and considerations to which its expert witness, Mr McDonald, referred.