Edgarange Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council

Edgarange Pty Ltd was engaged in a dispute with Redland Shire Council regarding the resumption of land under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). The case involved a preliminary issue of whether the resumption could proceed given the parties' consent to a specific course of action, which would likely save time and costs during the hearing. The Federal Court was tasked with determining this issue. The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the interplay between the resumption of land and changes in the planning scheme, particularly whether the resumption claim could include the impact of a scheme change and if the landowner/resumer could effectively "double-dip" by making a claim under both the planning legislation and for compensation.

The Court considered the Point Gourde principle, which typically applies when a resumption claim follows a change in the planning scheme, but here it was applied in reverse. The Court examined whether the resumption was related to the scheme change and if the resumption claim could include the impact of the scheme change. The Court ultimately found that the resumption claim could not include the impact of the scheme change, as doing so would amount to a landowner/resumer "double-dipping" in their claim. The Court also considered the highest and best use of the resumed land in the absence of a resumption scheme, taking into account the intrinsic physical characteristics and environmental value of the land.

The Court ruled that the resumption claim could not include the impact of the scheme change, as it would allow the landowner/resumer to "double-dip" in their claim. Additionally, the Court determined that the highest and best use of the resumed land in the absence of a resumption scheme should be based on the intrinsic physical characteristics and environmental value of the land. The Court's decision provided clarity on the relationship between resumption claims and planning scheme changes, and the potential consequences of "double-dipping" in claims under both the planning legislation and for compensation.