Update Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue

In the case of Update Pty Ltd versus the Commissioner of State Revenue, the central dispute revolves around the applicability of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) in the context of a land sale. The matter was initially decided by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and subsequently appealed to the court on a question of law. The appeal pertains to whether an oral communication regarding the offer and acceptance of land constitutes an "excluded event" that exempts the vendor from the GAIC. The appellant, Update Pty Ltd, contends that the oral agreement does not qualify as such an event, while the respondent, the Commissioner of State Revenue, asserts the opposite.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether an oral agreement for the sale of land could be considered an "excluded event" under section 201RB(iii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The court needed to determine if the oral communication of the offer and acceptance of the sale constituted a legally binding agreement sufficient to trigger the exclusion from the GAIC. Additionally, the court considered the procedural aspect of the case, specifically whether an extension of time should be granted for filing the application for leave to appeal, in accordance with section 148(5) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

The court, after careful consideration, concluded that the oral agreement indeed constituted an "excluded event" for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The reasoning was grounded in the understanding that the oral communication was sufficient to establish a binding agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the court found that granting the extension of time for the application for leave to appeal was in the interests of justice, and thus, the application was approved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of VCAT was overturned.

The final orders of the court were that the oral agreement was recognised as an "excluded event," thereby exempting the vendor from the GAIC. Additionally, the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal was granted.