The Property Mill – Victoria – 27 August 2013

August, 2013

In the media

Savill: big shopping centre deals back on the table

Savills latest research highlights that shopping centre transactions across the country hit $5.3 billion in the 12 months to June 2013, up from $3.9 billion the previous year (12 August 2013)

To read more, please click here.

New building plan to cut energy use in half

Beyond Zero Emissions releases the Building Plan, a nation-wide plan to retrofit Australia’s existing buildings, and both residential and non-residential buildings can expect to cut energy use in half if all recommendations are taken up (07 August 2013)

To read more, please click here.

 Could Australia follow NZ on property damage definition

Insurers could end up paying more claims in the future after legal experts said it was possible that Australian law will adopt New Zealand’s definition of property damage (07 August 2013)

To read more, please click here.

 Coonooer Bridge locals win with wind farm

The first wind farm to pass Victoria’s myriad planning obstacles for two years has just won approval at Coonooer Bridge. Project director Luke Osborne said the project was now waiting on a power contract to be agreed on, and hopes Coonooer Bridge will be the first of many other small projects involving groups of farmers (16 August 2013)

To read more, please click here.

Clubs aim high with city tower build plans

Freemasons Victoria, with joint venture partner Mirvac, has sought permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to replace its parkside Dallas Brooks Hall site in East Melbourne with two towers of 17 and 11 levels (10 August 2013)

To read more, please click here.

Published articles papers and reports

VCAT Decisions

Jarman v Campaspe SC (Including Summary) (Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 1292 (31 July 2013): Discrepancy between the text in a Schedule to a Heritage Overlay and what is shown in the corresponding overlay map.

John Gurry & Assoc Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC & Ors (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 1258 (12 July 2013): Affirmation of the Chen v Melbourne CC recommendation that there be a proper statewide statutory assessment framework for planning decision makers to utilise, in terms of what constitutes ‘acceptable impacts’ where a proposed development might cause overshadowing of existing adjacent solar panels


Summit Grain Investment Australia Pty Ltd v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria & Anor [2013] VSC 383

STAMP DUTY – Assessment – Declaration sought by plaintiff that items on land are chattels and not fixtures for tax purposes in accordance with Court of Appeal authority – Commencement of action before issue of assessment by Commissioner – Statutory powers and functions of Commissioner – Jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief sought – Extent of jurisdiction – Relevant principles – Applicable test – Discretionary considerations – Effect of Civil Procedure Act 2010 – Oil Basins Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [1993] HCA 60; (1993) 178 CLR 643 – Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 61; (1972) 127 CLR 421 – Cuming Campbell Investments Pty Ltd v Collector of Imposts (Victoria) [1938] HCA 53; (1938) 60 CLR 741 – Lucas v O’Reilly (Federal Commissioner of Taxation) (1979) 9 ATR 540 – Young v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 122 – Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd [2008] HCA 32; (2008) 237 CLR 146 – Vopak Terminals Australia v Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] VSCA 10; (2004) 12 VR 351 – Commissioner of State Revenue v Uniqema (2004) 9 VR 523 – Taxation Administration Act 1997 Pt 9 Div 2, Pt 10 – Duties Act 2000 (including s 273) – Civil Procedure Act 2010 sub-ss 7(1), 9(1) – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 Or 47.04

To read more, please click here.

Purple Tangerine Pty Ltd v Australian Financial Loan Management Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 411

LANDLORD AND TENANT – Application for interlocutory injunction – Claim by tenant for substantial interference with quiet possession and derogation of grant against landlord – Serious issue to be tried – Balance of convenience – Lower risk of injustice – Interlocutory injunction granted – Costs reserved.

To read more, please click here.

Contact Mills Oakley


James Price |  Partner
T: (03) 9605 0824

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use