Micro Developments Pty Limited v Rockdale City Council [2006] NSWSC 1400

Micro Developments Pty Limited v Rockdale City Council [2006] NSWSC 1400

The plaintiff would not have purchased the Property had it known the true zoning, and it was reasonable for it not to sell the Property after discovering the misdescription because the defendant's conduct and communications supported a belief that rezoning or development might occur. However, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant's negligence caused the loss of four or five hypothetical developments. The assumptions underlying that claim did not adequately account for development approval uncertainties, the diversion of two directors to private projects, available financial information, profits from Gungah Bay Road, and the potential development of 145-147 Russell Avenue. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Damages Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation in Relation to Zoning of Land / Assessment of Damages After Liability Admitted
Outcome
Plaintiff entitled to $1,461,280 plus adjustment for interest and tax.
Legal Topics
['negligent Misrepresentation' 'zoning Certificate' 'quantification of Damages' 'loss of Development Opportunity' 'mitigation' 'development Approval']
['torts' 'damages' 'planning and Development' 'local Government'] ['negligent Misrepresentation' 'zoning Certificate' 'quantification of Damages' 'loss of Development Opportunity' 'mitigation' 'development Approval']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Damages Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation in Relation to Zoning of Land / Assessment of Damages After Liability Admitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["How the plaintiff's damages should be quantified following the defendant's admitted negligent misrepresentation that the Property was zoned Residential 2(c2)." 'Whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to retain the Property after learning of its correct zoning rather than sell it.' "Whether the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff to lose the opportunity to undertake four or five hypothetical property developments." "What allowance should be made for uncertainties in development applications, the directors' private projects, the plaintiff's financial position, and anticipated profits from 145-147 Russell Avenue."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff would not have purchased the Property had it known the true zoning, and it was reasonable for it not to sell the Property after discovering the misdescription because the defendant's conduct and communications supported a belief that rezoning or development might occur. However, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant's negligence caused the loss of four or five hypothetical developments. The assumptions underlying that claim did not adequately account for development approval uncertainties, the diversion of two directors to private projects, available financial information, profits from Gungah Bay Road, and the potential development of 145-147 Russell Avenue. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff entitled to $1,461,280 plus adjustment for interest and tax.

Orders

  • ["The parties should bring in Short Minutes to reflect the final figure for the entry of judgment in the plaintiff's favour together with an agreed order as to costs." 'If the parties are unable to agree on a costs order, the Court will hear argument when the matter is listed at 9.30 on 1 February 2007.']