* Note - RADC is a lobbying group comprising people whose homes were
damaged. It is independent of SAP & has members who are not
also members of SAP *
As part of the preparation for constructing the Grand Prix racetrack across the playing fields of Albert Park, compaction of an area previously used as a rubbish dump occurred. To save costs and to speed up the work up to four cranes were used simulaneously to perform "dynamic compaction".
Basically dynamic compaction means loading up a big steel bucket with concrete and raising it approximately 10 metres in the air before dropping it. This dynamic compaction severly damaged up to 200 homes in the area with damage ranging from cracks to possible foundation damage. The Australian Grand Prix Act 1994 was passed to remove all common law rights of people to claim for damage caused in the construction of the racetrack and as a consequence people have been denied their rights to legal redress to correct the damage cause.
Photographic Record: Compaction Damages Resident's Homes
Summary of RADC's Claim Against Australian Grand Prix Corporation & Thiess Contractors for Damage by Dynamic Compaction Works
Letter to Jeff Kennett, 6 July 1999
Summary of RADC's Claim Against Australian Grand Prix Corporation & Thiess Contractors for Damage by Dynamic Compaction Works
- During the dynamic compaction works at the Albert Park Grand Prix track in February/ March 1995, owners of about 150 houses in the Middle Park area reported damage to their houses.
- Mr Kennett personally intervened and stated that "the Government would err on the side of compassion" in resolving the matter. Inspections were made by teams from the Office of Building of the affected houses.
- Based on the assessments by the Office of Building, offers of compensation were made by the Premier's Department. In many cases, the offer was clearly far less than the real cost of repairs, but the Premier's Department would not negotiate on the offer.
- The residents group initiated a test case in the Magistrate's Court against the AGPC and Thiess. The claim was for $17,000 damages, a figure agreed by both sides as being the true cost of the damage - the Premier's Department had offerred $1,950! The case was set down for ten days.
- The hearing actually lasted for about 27 days, mainly due to the Defendants' strategy of presenting an unsustainable defence based on statutory arguments and of calling extensive evidence from a large number of "Experts" on technical matters relating to causation.
- The Magistrate's findings were announced seven months after the conclusion of the hearing.
- The Magistrate found against all of the defences based on statutory arguments.
On the issue of causation, the Magistrate was unable to decide whether the damage was caused by the dynamic compaction works or by other causes. The Plaintiffs therefore failed in their application.
- On the basis of legal advice that no reasonable Magistrate could have arrived at such a decision, appeal proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court. The appeal was subsequently discontinued because of the high costs involved and concerns that the outcome of even a successful appeal may not have been satisfactory.
- On 13 October 1998, seven months after the discontinuation of the appeal, a letter was received from the Defendants' solicitors demanding payment of $486,501.92 for costs of the Magistrate's Court proceeding.
- On 23 June 1999, Terms of Settlement were agreed whereby the Plaintiffs must pay the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and Theiss Contractors $120,000 by 22 August 1999.
- On 16 July 1999 the plaintiffs wrote to the Premier reminding him of how he had promised, and failed, to resolve the matter and highlighted the consequences of his failure. Mr Kennett refused to accept responsibility and passed the buck to the Minister for Tourism, Louise Asher. There has been no reply from Ms Asher.
Top of this page
Letter to Jeff Kennett, 6 July 1999
6 July, 1999
Fax No: 9651 0111
Premier of Victoria
Mr JG Kennett
1st Floor
1 Treasury Place
MELBOURNE 3002
Dear Mr Kennett,
DAMAGE TO MIDDLE PARK HOUSE DURING GRAND PRIX CONSTRUCTION WORKS
The Melbourne Magistrates Court was to hear on 23 June the Australian Grand Prix Corporation's claim for costs of the case involving damage to the above property during the construction of the Grand Prix track at Albert Park in early 1995.
In an affidavit dated 24 May 1999 the Australian Grand Prix Corporation claimed costs of $420,443.41.
While the costs awarded by the magistrate may have been less than the $420,443.41 claimed by the AGPC, they would have amounted to a very substantial sum. On legal advice, I agreed to a sum of $120,000.
Given the background to this case, I believe that it is appropriate to request that you intervene to have these costs waived.
The background to which I refer includes the following major issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Courts
During 1995, your spokespersons and yourself were quoted on a number of occasions as stating that the Australian Grand Prix Act prevented citizens from obtaining damages through the courts. In his judgement, announced in June 1997, the magistrate found that this was not the case.
- Quantum of Damage
During the magistrates court hearing, the defendants agreed that the value of the repairs to the house was in excess of $17,000.
In a letter dated 28 April 1995 you made an offer to me of $1,950 to which I replied advising that my own estimate was $14,250.
Mr Steve Murphy replied on your behalf on 9 May 1995 advising that, as I had not accepted your offer of $1,950, the Government considered the matter to have been finalised.
In the " Age" of Friday 31 March 1995, in relation to the matter of the damaged houses, you were quoted as stating that the Government would "err on the side of compassion."
In the "Age" of Friday 28 April 1995, you were quoted as stating that the Government had "erred on the side of generosity."
An offer of $1,950 to cover a loss of over $17,000 was hardly compassionate or generous.
- Causation
While the magistrate did not find that the dynamic compaction works caused the damage to my house, neither did he find that the dynamic compaction did not cause the damage. The AGPC spent over $420,000 and still failed to prove that it did not damage my house. The question of causation therefore remains unresolved.
New evidence, published in the "Age" on 25 June 1999, suggests that the removal of ground water during the construction works may have been an additional factor contributing to the house damage. Also of concern is that the AGPC failed to disclose any of this information during the magistrates court hearing.
In view of the above facts, I believe that it is not fair, reasonable or compassionate to be demanding these huge costs from me, and I request your assistance to resolve this matter.
Yours sincerely,
........
Top of this page
Search our site
© 1995 - 1999 Save Albert Park ; permission to copy is given provided this copyright notice is reproduced in full
Postal Address: PO Box 1300, South Melbourne DC, Victoria, Australia 3205
Telephone: 61 3 9690 3855 ; Fax: 61 3 9690 3544
Email: SAP (sapark@save-albert-park.org.au) ; you may encrypt email sent to us - click here or contact us for more information
