| COURT OF APPEAL | [1999] QCA 001 |
| McMURDO P THOMAS JA MACKENZIE J | |
| Appeal No 11051 of 1998 | |
| DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL Applicant | |
| and | |
| FABCOT PTY LTD First Respondent | |
| and |
D G ROBERTSON HOLDINGS PTY LTD Second Respondent
and
THE RAINFOREST HABITAT PTY LTD Third Respondent
Appeal No 11052 of 1998
D G ROBERTSON HOLDINGS PTY LTD Applicant
and
DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL Second Respondent
and
FABCOT PTY LTD First Respondent
and
THE RAINFOREST HABITAT PTY LTD Third Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 02/02/99
020299 T1/SJ3 M/T COA2/99
THE PRESIDENT: It is convenient to deal with these applications together. They are applications for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Planning and Environment Court declaring that under the Douglas Shire Planning Scheme a supermarket was prohibited development on the land the subject of this application.
Under clause 4.1.56 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 an appeal lies to this Court where there
has been an error or mistake in law below but only with leave of this Court or a Judge of this Court.
Counsel for Fabcot Pty Ltd, the successful applicant before the Planning and Environment Court
and the primary respondent to these two appeals do not contend that there is any ground for
refusing leave to appeal and have informed the Court that the parties would agree to a consent order
granting leave to appeal if that were acceptable to this Court. As the Act requires leave of this
Court or a Judge of this Court a consent order cannot be appropriate.
Affidavit material filed on behalf of the Shire of Douglas states that the issue of whether a supermarket may be constructed on the subject land is very important to that applicant in respect of future town planning decisions to be made by it. The existence of land zoned or otherwise available to be used for a supermarket is significant in the exercise of discretion by the applicant in respect of other town planning matters and the issue affects the rights, obligations and duties of the Douglas Shire.
Affidavit material filed on behalf of the applicant D G Robertson Holdings Pty Ltd states that the issue of the proper construction of the planning scheme for the Shire of Douglas is an issue of importance to it as it wishes to construct a shopping centre including a supermarket on the subject land and the issue affects its rights.
The meaning of the term "shopping centre" in the zone description contained within the Douglas
Shire Planning Scheme and whether the term "shopping centre" includes a supermarket is a matter of
some importance not only to the parties but to the wider community. It is a matter of law. The term
"shopping centre" is not defined in the planning scheme. In these circumstances it is my view that
leave to appeal should be granted in each case.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
MACKENZIE J: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: The order in each case is that leave to appeal is granted. The costs of these applications are reserved.
-----
- AGLC
- Douglas Shire Council v Fabcot Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 1
- Case
- [1999] QCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the term "shopping centre" in the Douglas Shire Planning Scheme includes a supermarket. This interpretation is crucial as it affects the rights and obligations of the respondents and the broader community. The term "shopping centre" is not explicitly defined within the planning scheme, which necessitated a judicial interpretation. The applicants argued that understanding this term is essential for their planning rights and obligations. The Court had to decide if the lack of a clear definition warranted granting leave to appeal to resolve the ambiguity.
The Court of Appeal, led by McMurdo P, held that the importance of the issue at hand justified granting leave to appeal. The Court found that the interpretation of "shopping centre" is a matter of law, and the ambiguity in the planning scheme warranted judicial review. Thomas JA and MacKenzie J concurred with this decision. The Court emphasized that the issue affects the rights and planning decisions of the parties involved, including the Douglas Shire Council. Consequently, the Court ruled that leave to appeal should be granted in each case, allowing the applicants to challenge the Planning and Environment Court's judgment. The costs of the applications were reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.