Australian Investment and Development Pty Ltd (ACN 060 609 289) v Commissioner of State Revenue

Australian Investment and Development Pty Ltd (AID) appealed against the refusal of leave to appeal from an order of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The dispute centred around the interpretation of the term "greater Melbourne" in the context of the Land Tax Act 2005, and whether it included areas that were once part of the metropolitan area under the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958 but had since ceased to exist. The Commissioner of State Revenue argued that these areas were no longer part of the definition, while AID contended that they should still be included. The appeal process involved seeking leave to appeal the refusal of leave to appeal an order from VCAT.

The legal issues before the court included the proper interpretation of the term "greater Melbourne" under the Land Tax Act 2005, the relevance of the historical definition of "metropolitan area" under the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958, and whether the Commissioner was correct in asserting that certain areas, now ceased to exist, were no longer part of the definition. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the principle of precedent, as established in previous Court of Appeal decisions, applied to this case and if there was sufficient ground to depart from those decisions.

The court held that the Judge in the original decision was bound by the Court of Appeal's authority in Commissioner of State Revenue v EHL Burgess Properties Pty Ltd, which held that the term "greater Melbourne" did not include areas that had ceased to exist. The court found that the Commissioner was not plainly wrong in his interpretation, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal from the refusal of leave was granted, as the court considered that there was a sufficient ground to depart from the previous Court of Appeal decision, given the specific circumstances of this case.

The court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal from the refusal of leave was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. This meant that AID could not appeal the VCAT order, and the Commissioner's interpretation of "greater Melbourne" in the context of the Land Tax Act 2005 would stand.