Marsh v Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale
Case
•
[1966] HCA 77
•29 November 1966
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marsh v Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [1966] HCA 77
[1966] HCA 77
29 November 1966
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale against a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the validity of a notice issued under section 20(1) of the *Town Planning and Development Act 1928* (WA). The Shire had issued a notice to Mr. Marsh requiring him to cease using his land for a purpose it deemed unlawful, specifically the storage of caravans and boats. Mr. Marsh contended that the notice was invalid.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Shire had the power to issue the notice under section 20(1) of the *Town Planning and Development Act 1928* (WA) in circumstances where the use of the land was alleged to be unlawful, rather than merely contrary to a town planning scheme. The Court also had to determine the proper interpretation of "unlawful use" within the context of the Act and the Shire's powers.
The High Court held that section 20(1) of the Act conferred power on a local authority to issue a notice requiring the cessation of a use of land only where that use was contrary to a town planning scheme or interim development order. It did not extend to uses that were unlawful for reasons independent of town planning controls. The Court reasoned that the purpose of section 20(1) was to enforce town planning regulations, and to interpret it more broadly would grant excessive and unintended powers to local authorities. Consequently, the Shire's notice was found to be invalid as the use of Mr. Marsh's land, while potentially objectionable, was not contrary to any operative town planning scheme.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Shire had the power to issue the notice under section 20(1) of the *Town Planning and Development Act 1928* (WA) in circumstances where the use of the land was alleged to be unlawful, rather than merely contrary to a town planning scheme. The Court also had to determine the proper interpretation of "unlawful use" within the context of the Act and the Shire's powers.
The High Court held that section 20(1) of the Act conferred power on a local authority to issue a notice requiring the cessation of a use of land only where that use was contrary to a town planning scheme or interim development order. It did not extend to uses that were unlawful for reasons independent of town planning controls. The Court reasoned that the purpose of section 20(1) was to enforce town planning regulations, and to interpret it more broadly would grant excessive and unintended powers to local authorities. Consequently, the Shire's notice was found to be invalid as the use of Mr. Marsh's land, while potentially objectionable, was not contrary to any operative town planning scheme.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Negligence & Tort
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fermia, Samuel v Derrick Hand Esq & anor [1984] FCA 131 (53 ALR 731; 1 FCR 336)
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Carbone Bros Pty Ltd v Shire of Harvey
[2015] WASCA 248
Carbone Bros Pty Ltd v Shire of Harvey
[2014] WASC 284
Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd v Michael
[2003] WASC 156
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Green; Ex parte
[1965] HCA 32
Bolton v Madsen
[1963] HCA 16
Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria
[1964] HCA 77