Gamble v Kingborough Council

In *Gamble v Kingborough Council*, the Supreme Court of Tasmania, constituted by Blow CJ, Brett J, and Geason J, considered an appeal concerning the use of land for the operation of a mobile coffee cart. The central dispute revolved around whether this use was incidental to the permitted use of the land as a motel, or if it required separate planning permission. The defence had conceded at trial that planning permission was necessary for the coffee cart operation.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the concession made by defence counsel regarding the necessity of planning permission for the coffee cart operation was binding on the appellant. The Court was required to determine the legal effect of this concession and whether it precluded the appellant from arguing that the coffee cart operation was, in fact, incidental to the motel's permitted use.

The Court reasoned that a concession made by counsel during proceedings, if clear and unequivocal, is generally binding on the client. In this instance, the concession was found to be explicit and unambiguous, effectively admitting that planning permission was required for the coffee cart's operation. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant was bound by this concession and could not subsequently challenge the necessity of planning permission. The appeal was dismissed.