Brisbane City Council v Group Projects Pty Ltd

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ.

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL v. GROUP PROJECTS PTY. LTD.

(1979) 145 CLR 143

1 November 1979

Town Planning (Q.)—Statute—Contract

Town Planning (Q.)—Zoning—Crown land—Whether affected—City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, 1964-1977 (Q.), s. 4—Acts Interpretation Act, 1954-1977 (Q) s. 13. Statute—Crown—Whether bound—Implication—Town plan having force of law—Effect on Crown land. Contract—Discharge by frustration—Rezoning deed—Resumption of land before rezoning gazetted.

Decisions

November 1.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
GIBBS J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Wilson and am in agreement with them. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal. I only add that, in reaching my conclusion, I do not find it necessary to express any view on the question whether, if Crown land which purported to be zoned under the Town Plan is thereafter sold or leased, the purported zoning will then automatically become effective and bind the purchaser or lessee. (at p152)

STEPHEN J. In 1975 Group Projects Pty. Ltd. was the owner of almost nineteen acres of land in an outlying Brisbane suburb. This was land which it wished to develop in subdivisional allotments. The zoning of the land as "Future Urban" prevented that development. If it were to take place, the zoning required to be changed to "Residential 'A'". (at p153)

2. With re-zoning in view, Group Projects entered into negotiations with the Brisbane City Council. The outcome was a deed dated 30th October 1975. By it the Council agreed to make application to the Minister for Local Government and Electricity to have the land appropriately re-zoned. In return Group Projects agreed that, should the Governor-in-Council approve the Council's application for re-zoning, it would do a number of things. At a cost of $30,000 it would pave two existing roads, bounding frontages of the land, and provide kerbs, channels and footpaths: it would contribute almost $15,000 to the cost of providing a sewerage system to the land (but excluding reticulation) and almost $13,000 to the cost of providing water mains to the land (but again excluding reticulation), would construct water mains to, and along two frontages of, the land at a cost of some $9,500, would contribute over $23,000 to the cost of paving footpaths beside roads abutting allotments to be created on the land, and a further $38,000 to the cost of "undergrounding" the electricity reticulation of the land, as well as providing substantial sums towards the provision of parks, tree planting and the construction of a bridge. It also agreed that on the execution of the deed it would invest $122,600 in the Council's issue of inscribed stock. (at p153)

3. In addition to these obligations, all detailed in the second schedule to the deed, Group Projects also agreed that when it came to subdivide the land it would not only comply with all applicable laws affecting development of the proposed sub-division but would also undertake the work and make the payments specified in the…