Council of the Municipality of Canterbury v Scarf

The Council of the Municipality of Canterbury (the Council) brought proceedings against Mr. Scarf concerning the erection of a fence on his property. The dispute centred on whether the fence constituted a "building" within the meaning of the relevant local government legislation, specifically the *Local Government Act 1919* (NSW) and the Council's ordinances. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the correct interpretation of the term "building" as defined in the *Local Government Act 1919* and the Council's ordinances. This involved considering whether a fence, by its nature and purpose, could fall within the scope of this definition, particularly in circumstances where it might require development consent.

The Court reasoned that the definition of "building" in the Act and ordinances was broad and intended to encompass structures erected on land. It was held that a fence, particularly one of the dimensions and nature of the one in question, could indeed be considered a "building" for the purposes of the legislation. The Court applied the principle that statutory definitions should be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and that the purpose of the legislation was to regulate development and ensure compliance with planning controls. The Court found that the fence was erected without the necessary development consent required for a building.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal found in favour of the Council, upholding the decision that the fence was an unauthorised building and that Mr. Scarf was in breach of the Council's ordinances.