Konann Pty Ltd (ACN 084 100 149) v Casey City Council (in its capacity as collecting agency of the Cranbourne North Precinct Structure Plan Development Contributions Plan)

Konann Pty Ltd brought an action against Casey City Council, in its capacity as the collecting agency for the Cranbourne North Precinct Structure Plan Development Contributions Plan, seeking clarification on the extent of credit to be provided to the developer for infrastructure works completed. The dispute centred on whether the Council, as the collecting agency, was bound to credit the developer for the costs of infrastructure works completed under a development contributions plan, and the extent to which a credit or refund was payable. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legal obligations of the collecting agency and the responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 46P(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), which pertain to the crediting of contributions by the collecting agency. The court had to discern whether the collecting agency was required to credit the developer for the costs of infrastructure works completed, and if so, how this credit was to be calculated. The case also examined the duties and powers of the collecting agency in comparison to those of the responsible authority, and whether there was a risk of "double dipping" by the Council. The court considered the principles established in Casey City Council v Carson Simpson and distinguished the approach in Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Ltd.

The Court of Appeal found that the collecting agency was not required to credit the developer for the costs of infrastructure works completed under the development contributions plan. The court emphasised that the collecting agency's role was limited to collecting contributions and did not extend to determining the amount of credit to be applied. The court also clarified that the responsible authority, not the collecting agency, had the duty and power to determine the credit or refund payable to the developer. The court concluded that there was no risk of double dipping, as the responsible authority was responsible for ensuring that the developer was not required to pay twice for the same infrastructure works. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the VCAT for further consideration in light of the findings.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the matter be remitted to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for further consideration in light of the Court's findings. The Court did not make any further orders regarding the credit or refund to be applied to the developer's levy obligations.