DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 v Townsville City Council & Ors [2004] QPEC 092 PARTIES: BD495 of 2004
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(Applicant)AND
TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
(First Respondent)
ANDTHE WAREHOUSE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 003 038 702
(Second Respondent)
ANDLANDEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE LANCINI FAMILY DISCRETIONARY TRUST
ACN 101 998 193
(Third Respondent)AND
BD1007 of 2004
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
ACN 000 014 675
(Applicant)AND
TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
(First Respondent)
ANDMAKRO WAREHOUSE PTY LTD
ACN 087 578 578
(Second Respondent)
ANDDALRYMPLE TOWNSVILLE PTY LTD.
ACN 086 989 291
(Third Respondent)FILE NO/S: BD495/04 & BD1007/04 DIVISION: Planning and environment PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Planning & Environment Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 17 November 2004 DELIVERED AT: Townsville HEARING DATE: 18, 19 and 20 October 2004 JUDGE: PACK D.C.J. ORDER: First application of BD 495/04 I order pursuant to Sections 4.3.25 and 4.3.26 of the Integrated Act that the Second Respondent be directed to stop its use of premises at the subject site for the purpose of other development until further order. From paragraph 60(3).
Second application of BD 1007/04 I order pursuant to Sections 4.3.25 and 4.3.26 of the Integrated Act that the Second Respondent be directed to stop its use of premises at the subject site for the purpose of other development until further order. From paragraph 61(3).
I adjourn the further hearing of the applications and suspend the operation of paragraphs 60(3) and 61(3).
CATCHWORDS: PLANNING LAW – INJUCTION PROCEEDINGS. CONSTRUCTION OF PLANNING SCHEME – whether use permitted under planning scheme. Use and definition of ‘showroom’. Interpretation and construction of planning scheme. Administration of scheme by Local Government. Ascertaining ‘Legislative intention’ of scheme. Cases considered:
Westfield Management Ltd –v- Pine Rivers Shire Council, unreported (PEC, 14 November 2003, 1627/2003)
Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd –v- Woolworths Ltd [2003] NSWCA 270
Woolworths Ltd –v- Caboolture Shire Council and The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 15
Woolworths Ltd –v- Caboolture Shire Council and Makro Warehouse Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 15
Woolworths Ltd –v- Caboolture Shire Council and The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 26
Woolworths Ltd –v- Caboolture Shire Council and Makro Warehouse Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 26
Woolworths Ltd –v- The Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWLEC 31
Woolworths Ltd –v- Toowoomba City Council and Makro Warehouse Pty Ltd [2004] QPEC 66
Counsel:Mr D. GORE QC and Mr J D HOUSTON for the Applicant in 495/04 and 1007/04
Mr MJ BURNETT for first Respondent 495/04 and 1007/04
Mr RS LITSTER for the second Respondent 495/04 and 1007/04
Mr PJ LYONS QC for the third respondent in 495/04
Solicitors: Malleson Stephen Jacques for the Applicant
Townsville City Council for first Respondent
Deacons for the second Respondent
Suthers and Taylor for the third Respondent
In this matter the Applicant, Woolworths Ltd (“Woolworths”) initially sought relief in the following terms against the Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Warehouse”) as…
Continue reading Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 v Townsville City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 v Townsville City Council [2004] QPEC 92
- Case
- [2004] QPEC 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Townsville Planning Scheme, particularly the definitions and restrictions on the use of 'showrooms'. The court had to determine if the premises in question were being used as a showroom, and if so, whether such use was compliant with the planning scheme. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain the legislative intent behind the restrictions placed on showrooms within the scheme, which would guide its interpretation and application.
The court examined the language of the planning scheme, the context in which it was enacted, and relevant legislative intent. It found that the premises were indeed being used as a showroom, contrary to the planning scheme's restrictions. The court held that the definition of 'showroom' in the scheme was broad enough to encompass the activities occurring on the site. In interpreting the scheme, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative intent, which aimed to control the proliferation of showrooms in the area. Consequently, the court ruled that the use of the premises as a showroom was not permitted and ordered the Townsville City Council to take steps to prevent further use of the premises for this purpose until further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
First application of BD 495/04 I order pursuant to Sections 4.3.25 and 4.3.26 of the Integrated Act that the Second Respondent be directed to stop its use of premises at the subject site for the purpose of other development until further order. From paragraph 60(3).
Second application of BD 1007/04 I order pursuant to Sections 4.3.25 and 4.3.26 of the Integrated Act that the Second Respondent be directed to stop its use of premises at the subject site for the purpose of other development until further order. From paragraph 61(3).
I adjourn the further hearing of the applications and suspend the operation of paragraphs 60(3) and 61(3).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.