Woolworths Limited v Randwick City Council

Woolworths Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Land and Environment Court concerning a development application for a shop within an existing building. The dispute centred on whether the existing building met the criteria of being designed or constructed for the purpose of "commercial premises" as defined by Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, a precondition to granting consent for a shop.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the correct interpretation of "commercial premises" and whether the existing building, which had previously housed a registered club, qualified as such. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Land and Environment Court had erred in its approach to assessing whether the building was designed or constructed for "retail premises," which is included within the definition of "commercial premises." The court also considered whether the Land and Environment Court had applied the correct test in relation to the building's design and construction for retail purposes, and whether a requirement for retail sales to be "directly to the public" was a misdirection.

The Court of Appeal found that the Land and Environment Court had misdirected itself in several respects. It held that the question of whether the current use of the building was for a registered club, or whether a registered club could constitute "commercial premises," was irrelevant to the assessment of whether the building was designed or constructed for commercial purposes. Crucially, the Court of Appeal determined that the Land and Environment Court had erred by not holding, on the facts found, that the existing building was designed or constructed for retail premises, and that the requirement for retail sales to be "directly to the public" was an incorrect interpretation of the planning instrument.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the answers given by the Land and Environment Court to separate questions, and substituted its own answers. The court also set aside the Land and Environment Court's order dismissing the appeal and remitted the proceedings back to the Land and Environment Court for determination in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.