S.T.A.N Constructions Pty Ltd v Williams, Gilbert Frank

[1979] FCA 115

K 'n

, . .-. .%F.%-. . - .D ISTRICT REGISTRY

i	....	. :	...	D I V I S I O N
No of Action ... .!.\L.. . of -7.1 . ..

~ X . A . A . ~ 4 a V L ,c\& t q \A UA\,~S,~

TITLE OF ACTION ........ ... .'P-- WC. '.W.. ........ .... -3.. .-. ........ ....

S.\\ .T9

Date ( S ) of hear ing . .l 4 . .:........ .. / R& S - D a t e judgment d e l i v e r e d . ........ ..

, 3

Counsel and ( D.. . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( .

( ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...

S o l i c i t o r s f o r (

l

Counsel and	(	........ ........ ........ ..	QC. ~ w * <
(

( e l

S o l i c i t o r s	f o r	i	....	NP:.	.L...	.	........ ........ ......	I
f

Signed ....... .-. .......

(Associate)

-7-tt.-'9

Date : ........ ........ .-.

C : To hc c ~ c s ~ ~ ~ C C I I ~ C ~ t o I'r1 n c i 11al l :cc j~s~l-y , ,Cy&t?y Tor

on-Lox\rc\rdi~:g t o la:r p u b l ~ s h c r s )

Appeal from r e f u s a l of o r d e r n i s i f o r w r i t s o f

P r o h i b i t i o n and C e r t i o r a r i - A l t e r a t i o n t o

b u i l d i n g made wi thout approval - F a i l u r e t o

comply wi th r e s t o r a t i o n n o t i c e of Bui lding

C o n t r o l l e r - V a l i d i t y o f r e g . l l ( 1 ) of Canberra

Bui lding Regula t ions .

S.T.A.N. Cons t ruc t ions P ty . Ltd . v. G i l b e r t Frank Williams

No. 1 4 of 1 9 7 7

Coram: Smithers , Connor and' Franki JJ.

Date:	Novenlber	1 9 7 9
Canberra.

I N T H E	FEDERAL	COURT	O F A U S T R A L I A	)
>

AUSTRALIAN	CA~'~ ' I 'AL 'TERRITORY	j
1 F . C . N o . 14 o f 1 9 7 7

D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	1
1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N 5

ON A P P E A L FROM THE SUPREME COURT O F

T H E AUSTRALIAN C A P I T A L T E R R I T O R Y

BETWEEN: S . T . A . N . CONSTRUCTIONS P T Y . L I M I T E D

A p p e l l a n t

AND: G I L B E R T F U N K I v I L L I & l S

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

J U D G E S MAKING ORDER : S m i t h e r s , C o n n o r and F r a n k 1 JJ.

DATE OR ORDER : 8 N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 9

WHERE blADE : C a n b e r r a .

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

T h e appeal be d i s m i s s e d .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
AUSTRALIAI< C4.PITP.L TERRITORY
DISTRICT FEGISTRY	I No. F.C. 14 of 1977 \
GENERAL DIVISION	I

ON APPEAL FRObl T I E SUPREPIE COURT

OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: S.T.A.N. CONSTRUCTIONS PTY. LTD.

Appellant

- AND: GILBERT FRANK IIILLIAMS

Respondent

Coram: Smithers, Connor and Franki JJ.

November 1979

REASONS FOR JUDG:JIENT

SMITHERS J.: I n t h i s matter I have had t h e advantage of

reading t h e Fieasons f c r Judgment prepared by my brothers Connor

and Franki JJ. I agree wi th those reasons and have nothing

f u r t h e r t o add.

pcLF I= o_ L,- '"?-

4 +-I &--S 4- JdY me-l-

L - c-f L, i ~ - c . - ~ r c ~ ~

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF CONNOK AND FRANK1 JJ.

This i s an appea l from t h e Supreme Court o f t h e

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y i n t h e fo l lowing c i rcumstances .

The a p p e l l a n t , S.T.A.N. Cons t ruc t ions P ty . Limited i n s t i t u t e d

an appeal from t h e Bui lding Review Committee c o n s t i t u t e d

under t h e Bui ld ing Ordinance 1972 and i n t h a t appea l c e r t a i n

f a c t s were agreed which inc luded t h e fo l lowing:

a) The a p p e l l a n t i s t h e owner of c e r t a i n l e a s e h o l d land

a t Red H i l l i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

and t h e succes so r i n t i t l e o f Agua Marga P ty . Limited.

A c c r t l f i c a t e of f i t n e s s f o r occupat ion and use had

been i s s u e d on 7 October 1967 under t h e p r o v i s i o n s

of t h e Canberra Bui ld ing Regulat ions a s then

e x i s t i n g .

Not l a t e r than 2 1 Fcbruary 1968 a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e

b u i l d i n g were c a r r i e d ou t wi thout approval having

been ob ta lned under t h e Canberra Bui ld ing Regulat ions .

On o r about 4 February 1975 t h e respondent , a s

Bui ld ing C o n t r o l l e r un'der t h e Bui ld ing Ordinance

1972, se rved a n o t i c e on t h e a p p e l l a n t r e q u i r i n g i t

t o r e s t o r e t h e b u i l d l n g t o t h e cond i t i on i n which

~t was when t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f f i t n e s s f o r occupat ion

and use was i s s u e d . This involved t h e demol i t ion

of o r making good of such o f t h e a l t e r a t i o n s

a s had n o t been demolished o r made good by

4 February 1975.

The n o t i c e had n o t been complied wi th .

The a p p e l l a n t , w i t h i n t h e p r e s c r i b e d t ime , lodged

n o t i c e of o b j e c t i o n t o t h e s a i d n o t i c e and t h e

m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h e Bui lding Review Committee

e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e Bui ld ing Ordinance 1972

and t h a t Committee d i smissed t h e o b j e c t i o n .

The l e a r n e d judge be fo re whom t h e appeal came

dismissed it f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e r e i s no appeal

from t h a t d i s m i s s a l . Ho~rever, a t t h e h e a r i n g be fo re t h e l e a r n e d

judge t h e a p p e l l a n t a p p l i c d f o r an o r d e r n i s i f o r a w r i t o f

c e r t i o r a r i o r a crlt of p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e respondent ,

a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e n o t i c e was i n v a l i d . By consent and wi th t h e

approval o f t h e l e a r n e d judge t h e m e r i t s o f t h e m a t t e r were

argued a s i f an o r d e r n i s i had been g ran ted , The l ea rned judge

r e fused t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r o r d e r s n i s i f o r w r i t s of p r o h i b i t i o n

and c e r t i o r a r i and ordered t h e a p p e l l a n t t o pay t h e r e sponden t ' s

t axed c o s t s . The a p p e l l a n t has appealed from those o r d e r s t o

t h i s Court .

Sen ior counsel f o r t h e respondent argued t h a t t h i s

Court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e appeal f o r a

number o f r ea sons . Because we have reached a c l e a r conc lus ion

t h a t t h e appeal should f a i l WC do n o t cons ide r it i s necessary

t o dea l i n any d e t a i l w i th t h e arguments p re sen ted t o us on t h i s

---- ------.-U - - - -- --

, , l .----

aspec t bu t we can s e e no reason why t h e Court has n o t

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h i s appea l . I'!hatever may be t h e

p o s l t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o an appcal from a r e f u s a l by a judge t o

g ran t an o rdc r n i s i , i n t h i s case t h e l e a r n e d judge d i d f a r more

than t h a t i n t h a t he determined t h e r e a l i s s u e between t h e p a r t i e s ,

a l though he d i d r e s e r v e l j h e r t y t o t h e respondent t o add f u r t h e r

argument on t h e r e t u r n of any o r d e r n i s i . The l e a r n e d judge

concluded by r e f u s i n g t h e o r d e r s n i s i sought and o rde r ing t h e

a p p e l l a n t t o pay t h e taxed c o s t s o f t h e respondent . I t w i l l be

seen t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e l e a r n e d judge made an o r d e r a s t o c o s t s

and a l s o went much f u r t h e r t han merely r e f u s i n g an o r d e r n i s i

f o r t h e w r l t s sought i n t h e way i n which t h a t u s u a l l y happens

i n such a p p l i c a t i o n s . I n any event an appeal from a r e f u s a l o f

an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an o r d e r n i s i was heard i n T e s t r o Bros. P ty .

Lirnitcd v. T a i t (1963) 109 C . L . R . 353. By a m a j o r i t y o f t h r e e t o

two t h e High Court d ismissed t h e appea l ; bu t a l l f i v e judges

t r e a t e d t h e appeal a s competent.

IVhen t h i s m a t t e r was f i r s t b e f o r e us d e t a i l e d

c o n s i d e r a t i o n was g lven t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e Canberra

Bui lding Regulations between t h e d a t e ;,[hen t h e y were made under

t h e Bui ld ing and Se rv i ces Ordinance 1924 on 1 6 October 1924 and

t h e d a t e of t h e Sea t of Government Adminis t ra t ion Act 1930. A

number of d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n s of law were posed f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n

bu t s u b s t a n t i a l l y no a t t e n t i o n was given t o t h e p o s i t i o n a f t e r 1930. -

The Canberra Bui lding Regulat ions o f 1 9 2 4 were

r e f e r r e d t o i n argument hu t a l though r e g u l a t i o n 11 was r e f e r r e d

t o , no d e t a i l e d examination of i t was made by e i t h e r o f t h e

p a r t l e s . A t t h e end o f t h e hea r ing t h e r e g u l a t i o n s were

supp l i ed t o us and upon examination of r e g u l a t i o n 11 it i s

abundantly c l e a r i n our op in ion t h a t t h a t r e g u l a t i o n could n o t

be s a i d t o p rov ide t h a t any permiss ion was r e q u i r e d f o r t h e

a l t e r a t i o n of a b u i l d i n g .

Regulat ion l l ( l ) 7 w l l i c h under t h e 1 9 2 4 r e g u l a t i o n s

r e a d ,

"No b u i l d e r s h a l l commence any b u i l d i n g

u n l e s s he has ob ta ined a w r i t t e n permit

from t h e proper a u t h o r i t y t o e r e c t t h e

b u i l d i n g . "

was omit ted and i n i t s s t e a d t h e fo l lowing r e g u l a t i o n was

i n s e r t e d by No.3 of 1965:

"A person s h a l l n o t c a r r y out any work

on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f , o r alteration

t o , a b u i l d i n g u n l e s s t h e proper

a u t h o r i t y has i s s u e d a w r i t t e n permit

authorising t h e e r e c t l o n o r a l t e r a t i o n

of t h e b u i l d i n g by t h a t person."

This s u b s t i t u t e d regulation was made on t h e same

day a s ordinance No.19 of 1964, c a l l e d t h e Bui ld lng Ordinance

1964, came i n t o ope ra t ion .

I t seemed neces sa rv t h a t t h i s ma t t e r should be

r e - l i s t e d t o enable t h e p a r t i e s t o make any submissions t hey

might wish t o make upon t h e p o s i t i o n a s it emerged a f t e r we had

r e se rved our judgment. This course seemed p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e

s i n c e l i t i g a t i o n i n r e s p e c t of what appeared t o have been t h e

same a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e same b u i l d i n g had been heard by t h e

Supreme Court of t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y i n A g u a

hlarga P ty . Limited v . Ff in i s te r o f S t a t e f o r t h e I n t e r i o r (1973)

2 2 F . L . R . 136. I t was common ground t h a t i n t h a t case t h e

l ea rned t r i a l judge had n o t been r e f e r r e d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f

t h e Federa l C a p i t a l Com~nission's Powers Ordinance 1924 and t h e

Bui lding and Se rv i ces Ordinance 1925 which, when t h i s m a t t e r was

f i r s t argued b e f o r e u s , were s a i d t o be r e l e v a n t f o r our cons ide ra t ion . :

When t h e ma t t e r was r e - l i s t e d be fo re us counsel f o r

t h e respondent submi t ted t h a t regulation 11 of t h e 1 9 2 4

r e g u l a t i o n s was i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e s e procecdings , a l though when

t h e ma t t e r was E l r s t be fo re us t h e respondent r e l i e d i n p a r t i c u l a r

on t h a t r e g u l a t i o n .

Because of t h e s h o r t n o t i c e which we gave t h e p a r t i e s

when we r e - l i s t c d t h e m a t t e r we i n v i t e d w r i t t e n submissions

which we have now cons idered .

I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e only i s s u e r e a l l y be fo re us

which we need t o cons ide r i s whether t h e new r e g u l a t i o n l l ( 1 )

which was s u b s t i t u t e d i n t h e Canbefra Bui ld ing Regulat ions i n

1965 was v a l i d . Whatever may be t h e e f f e c t of s . 4 o f t h e

Bui lding Ordinance 1964, s . 2 2 p rov ides .

"The M i n i s t e r may make r e g u l a t i o n s not

i n c o n s i s t e n t w l th t h i s Ordinance

p r e s c r i b i n g a l l m a t t e r s which a r e

necessary o r convenient t o be

p r e s c r i b e d f o r c a r r y l n g ou t o r

g iv lng e f f e c t t o t h i s Ordinance."

When one examines t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s .22 and s s . 8 and 11 of

t h a t Ordinance, which specifically r e f e r t o t h e n e c e s s i t y

f o r permi t s f o r a l t e r a t i o n s , it appears p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t h a t

r e g u l a t i o n l l ( 1 ) i s v a l i d .

The n o t i c e which was i s s u e d on o r about 4 February

1975 was i s s u c d pursuant t o S . 46 ( l ) (a) o f t h e B u i l d i n g

Ordinance 1972, a s amended by No.38 of 1 9 7 4 , which provided:

"Where ... b u i l d i n g work has bcen c a r r i e d

o u t . . . b e f o r e . . . t h e commencement o f

t h l s Ordinance, without a permit f o r t h a t

b u l l d i n g work havlng been i s s u e d under t h e

Canberra Bui ld ing Regula t ions ... t h e

Bui lding C o n t r o l l e r may s e r v e on t h e owner

of t h e p a r c e l of l and on which t h e b u i l d i n g

work has been c a r r i e d o u t ... a n o t i c e

directing him t o c a r r y ou t such b u i l d i n g

work (including demol i t ion) on t h a t p a r c e l 11

of l and a s i s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e . . . .

"Building work" i s de f ined a s fo l lows:

"In r e l a t i o n t o a b u i l d i n g , means work i n

connect ion wi th t h e e r e c t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n

o r demol i t ion of t h e b u i l d i n g . "

I t i s common ground t h a r a t t h e t ime when t h e

a l t e r a t i o n s were c a r r i e d out no permi t had been ob ta ined and

t h e r e f o r e i n our opinion t h e on ly ques t ion f o r our de te rmina t ion

i s whether o r no t t h e s u b s t i t u t e d r e g u l a t i o n l l ( 1 ) of 1965 was

v a l i d . I n view o i what we have s a i d we t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s no

doubt about i t s v a l i d i t y .

Therefore we would d i smiss t h l s appea l . I n

vicw of t h e u n f o r t u n a t e h i s t o r y of t h i s ma t t e r we t h i n k it

i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o l eave each s l d e t o pay t h e i r own c o s t s o f

t h i s appea l .

I ccrt:i'l; ":1:'.t : i : ~ s 311d th.3 "W

?r< L *.rr:n[ pegvs arc a t r u e c~p : r o f thc

I9.c.r 1.r.r Ju,lcment here111 o f h l e Honour