WFA Pty Limited (Formerly Waterfurnace Australia Pty Limited) v Hobart City Council S91/2000

WFA Pty Limited (formerly Waterfurnace Australia Pty Limited) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued by the Hobart City Council under section 177 of the *Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993* (Tas) requiring WFA to remove a building extension. The Supreme Court had upheld the Council's decision.

The High Court was required to determine whether the notice issued by the Council was valid, specifically whether the extension constituted a "building" for the purposes of section 177 of the Act, and whether the Council had properly exercised its discretion in issuing the notice. The central question was whether the extension, which was described as a "temporary structure" and a "display unit," fell within the definition of a "building" under the Act, thereby attracting the Council's power to issue a removal notice.

Gaudron and Callinan JJ found that the structure in question was indeed a "building" within the meaning of the Act, as it was a substantial and permanent fixture. They reasoned that the Council had acted within its powers in issuing the notice, as the extension did not comply with the relevant building regulations. The Court emphasised that the Council's discretion under section 177 was not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably and for the purposes for which the power was granted. The appeal was dismissed.