LAFOU PTY LTD and TOWN OF CLAREMONT

LaFou Pty Ltd, the owner of a property at Claremont, sought to overturn a direction issued by the Town of Claremont under section 214(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) that required them to restore the land to its pre-development condition by rebuilding a house, garage and fences that had been demolished. LaFou argued that the direction was unauthorised because it required the rebuilding of a demolished structure, which was not an alteration of the demolition, and that the direction was contrary to the practical difficulties of rebuilding. The Town of Claremont, which had not previously issued a direction to the owner of the land at the time of the demolition, contended that the direction was authorised and necessary to restore the land to its pre-development condition.

The central legal issue was whether the direction was authorised by section 214(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). The court considered whether the term 'development' included 'demolition' for the purposes of the section, and whether the direction could require the rebuilding of a demolished structure. The court also considered whether the direction could be given to a landowner who did not undertake the unlawful development and who acquired ownership after the demolition. The court examined the meaning of the expression 'the owner or any other person who undertook the development' in the context of the direction.

The court held that the direction was not authorised by section 214(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). The court found that the term 'development' did not include 'demolition' for the purposes of the section, and that the direction could not require the rebuilding of a demolished structure. The court also held that the direction could not be given to a landowner who did not undertake the unlawful development and who acquired ownership after the demolition. The court found that the expression 'the owner or any other person who undertook the development' referred to the person who undertook the development, and not to any subsequent owner of the land.

The court ordered that the direction issued by the Town of Claremont was quashed. The court did not make any orders as to costs.