Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Western Australian Planning Commission (the Commission) against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (Temwood). The dispute arose from conditions imposed by the Commission on Temwood's applications for subdivision approval for its land, known as the Bayshore Garden Estate. A strip of this land had been reserved for "Parks and recreation area" under a Metropolitan Region Scheme gazetted in 1963, but ownership remained with the proprietor. Temwood acquired the land in 1992 and subsequently sought subdivision approval for portions of it.

The central legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether Temwood, as a subsequent owner of the land, possessed a statutory right to compensation for the injurious affection caused by the 1963 reservation of the foreshore land, given that neither it nor previous owners had received compensation. Secondly, the Court had to determine whether the Commission validly imposed a condition on Temwood's subdivision approvals requiring the foreshore reserve to be vested in the Crown free of cost and without compensation, and if this condition was for a proper planning purpose and fairly and reasonably related to the permitted development.

The High Court reasoned that the statutory right to compensation for injurious affection under the relevant Western Australian legislation was a personal right that did not pass with the land to subsequent owners. This right was contingent on specific events occurring and a claim being made within a prescribed time, and as such, it was not a vested proprietary right that would automatically transfer. Furthermore, the Court found that the Commission's power to impose conditions on subdivision approvals under section 20(1)(a) of the Town Planning Act was broad. The condition requiring the vesting of the foreshore reserve in the Crown free of cost was considered a valid exercise of this power, being for a proper planning purpose and directly related to the subdivision and development of the land. The Court distinguished this from an unlawful confiscation, viewing it as a condition for granting the privilege of subdivision.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal to that Court was dismissed, and the Commission was ordered to pay Temwood's reasonable costs of the appeal to the High Court.