Hayes v Walker - [2004] QCA 288

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hayes v Walker & Anor [2004] QCA 288

PARTIES:

PATRICK EDWARD HAYES
(applicant/respondent)
v
ERIC BRUCE WALKER
(respondent/appellant)
REGINA ELIZABETH WALKER
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12043 of 2003
SC No 10359 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – CONSENTS – APPROVALS AND PERMITS – INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where contract for the appellants to sell land to the respondent – where the respondent hoped to develop townhouses on the land – whether the decision notice issued by Brisbane City Council should be characterised as a “development approval” within the meaning of conditions one and three of the contract

Integrated Planning Act 1977 (Qld), s 3.5.15, s 3.5.17, s 3.5.19, s 4.1.54(3)

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337, distinguished
Magic Mountain Developments Pty Ltd v Laureate Australia Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 570, cited
Snowlife Pty Ltd v Robina Land Corporation Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 564, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Morris QC for the appellants
T P Sullivan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

LeMass Solicitors for the appellants
Phillips Fox for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: By a contract dated 27 November 2002, the appellants agreed to sell, and the respondent agreed to purchase, 1,485 square metres of vacant land in the Parish of Toombul, for the price of $380,000. As will emerge, the respondent hoped to be able to construct a number of townhouses on the land: the appellants had applied previously for development approval, although approval had not, by the time of the contract, been granted.

These proceedings concern the proper construction of two of the “special conditions” of the contract. Condition one is headed “Development Approval” and provides:

“This contract is subject to the seller obtaining from the Brisbane City Council approval to develop the land and to construct:
5x3 bedroom townhouses and
2x2 bedroom townhouses

The contract is conditional upon the buyer being satisfied with all the terms, conditions and requirements as set down by the Brisbane City in relation to the said D.A.”

In its originally drafted form, the words “within 30 days of receipt of all relevant documentation relating to the Development Approval” were included after “the said D.A.”. The parties deleted those words and initialled the deletion.

Condition three is headed “Due Diligence”. It provides:

“3.1This Contract is conditional on the Buyer being satisfied in its absolute discretion with the results of a due diligence inquiry in respect of the Land, and any other area of consideration that the Buyer may in its discretion consider appropriate for enquiry in connection…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hayes v Walker

Details

AGLC: Hayes v Walker [2004] QCA 288
Case: [2004] QCA 288
Decision Date: 6 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hayes v Walker involved a dispute between the appellants, Hayes, and the respondent, Walker. The central issue was whether a decision notice issued by the Brisbane City Council should be considered a "development approval" as outlined in conditions one and three of the contract between the parties. The contract was for the sale of land, with the respondent intending to develop townhouses on the property. The appellants sought to argue that the decision notice was not a development approval, while the respondent contended that it was. The case ultimately reached the court, which was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the contract terms.

The legal issues before the court centred around the interpretation of the contract between Hayes and Walker. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the decision notice from the Brisbane City Council constituted a "development approval" under the contract. The appellants argued that the decision notice did not meet the criteria for a development approval, while the respondent maintained that it did. The court's analysis involved closely examining the terms of the contract and the nature of the decision notice, as well as relevant statutory and regulatory frameworks governing development approvals in Queensland.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the plain meaning of the contract terms and the context in which they were used. It found that the decision notice issued by the Brisbane City Council met the definition of a "development approval" as outlined in the contract. The court determined that the decision notice was a formal authorisation that was necessary for the development of the land and therefore qualified as a development approval. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that costs be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

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.

CITATION:	Hayes v Walker & Anor [2004] QCA 288
PARTIES:	PATRICK EDWARD HAYES (applicant/respondent) v ERIC BRUCE WALKER (respondent/appellant) REGINA ELIZABETH WALKER (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 12043 of 2003 SC No 10359 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – CONSENTS – APPROVALS AND PERMITS – INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where contract for the appellants to sell land to the respondent – where the respondent hoped to develop townhouses on the land – whether the decision notice issued by Brisbane City Council should be characterised as a “development approval” within the meaning of conditions one and three of the contract
Integrated Planning Act 1977 (Qld), s 3.5.15, s 3.5.17, s 3.5.19, s 4.1.54(3) Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337, distinguished Magic Mountain Developments Pty Ltd v Laureate Australia Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 570, cited Snowlife Pty Ltd v Robina Land Corporation Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 564, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Morris QC for the appellants T P Sullivan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	LeMass Solicitors for the appellants Phillips Fox for the respondent