Sydney Serviced Apartments Pty Limited & Anor v The Council of the Municipality of North Sydney

Sydney Serviced Apartments Pty Limited and another sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the term "residential flat building" within a planning scheme, specifically whether the concept of "domicile" incorporated into its definition required a place of permanent residence. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal erred in overruling the primary judge's finding that "domicile" should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of a place where one can live, rather than a strict legalistic meaning of permanent residence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the correct interpretation of "domicile" as it applied to the definition of a "residential flat building" in the context of planning law. The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly introduced a requirement of permanence into the definition, departing from the approach taken by a South Australian court in *Masters v Padley*. This contrasted with the Court of Appeal's view, which held that the description of a flat as a "dwelling" or "domicile" inherently carried a notion of permanency.

The applicants' argument was that the primary judge had correctly interpreted "domicile" in its ordinary sense, aligning with the principle that a flat is a place where people may live and that "domicile" in this context referred to a domestic use rather than a permanent one. The New South Wales Court of Appeal, however, had adopted a different stance, finding that the term "domicile" implied a degree of permanency. This latter interpretation relied on previous decisions, including *Burwood Municipal Council v Aboriginal Hostels Limited* and *Slazengers v Emerson*.