Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2016
  4. University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council - [2016] QPEC 35

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 35

University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council[2016] QPEC 35

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council & CBUS Property Brisbane Pty Ltd [2016] QPEC 35

PARTIES:

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

and

CBUS PROPERTY BRISBANE PTY LTD

(co-respondent)

FILE NO/S:

4990 of 2015

DIVISION:

 

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2016 – 3 June 2016 and 7 June 2016

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – where the respondent Council approved a development application for a material change of use for Multiple Dwellings – where the applicant appealed to the Planning & Environment Court for a declaration that the Council’s Decision Notice approving the development was invalid and ought to be set aside – whether the decision maker of the Council fell into jurisdictional error – whether the Council failed to properly assess the development application.

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, 456, 351

Body Corporate for Surfers International Community Titles Scheme 12247 & Anor v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2016] QPEC 29

Bon Accord Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2010] QPELR 23

Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

Flegg v CMC & Anor [2014] QCA 42

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18

Public Service Association of South Australian Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australian and Anor (2012) 249 CLR 398

Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2014) 201 LGERA 82

COUNSEL:

R Traves QC, M Williamson and N Loos for the Appellant

M Hinson QC and J Lyons for the Respondent

D Gore QC, M Johnson and M Batty for the Co-Respondent

SOLICITORS:

King & Wood Mallesons for the Appellant

Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent

HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the Co-Respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This is an application for declaratory and consequential relief pursuant to s 456 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (“SPA”). 
  1. [2]
    The relief is sought by the applicant in respect of the respondent’s Decision Notice dated 22 December 2015 (“the Decision Notice”) approving, subject to conditions, a development application for a material change of use for Multiple Dwellings (264 units) and Centre Activities (Retail and Food and Drink Outlet) on land situate at 443 Queen Street, Brisbane (“the Land”).[1]
  1. [3]
    The applicant contends that the Decision Notice is invalid and ought to be set aside. Pleadings and submissions of the parties in this proceeding have been substantially amended. Ultimately the applicant identified six discrete grounds by which it challenges the validity of the decision of the respondent’s delegate which is the subject of the Decision Notice. This proceeding is brought in circumstances where the applicant changed the development application pursuant to s 351 of SPA on 18 November 2015[2], and where, pursuant to the changed application, the applicant nominated Transferable Site Area (“TSA”)[3] and the delegate also made a separate decision, on 22 December 2015, approving the transfer of TSA as requested.[4]  The applicant’s six nominated grounds of challenge are:
  1. The changed development application was wrongly treated by the delegate as being a code assessable development application (“The level of assessment point”);
  2. The delegate had no power to approve the allocation of TSA (“The instrument of delegation point”);
  3. The delegate failed to probably assess the request to approve the allocation of TSA (“The TSA proper assessment point”);
  4. The delegate’s decision to approve the allocation of TSA was an unreasonable decision (“The TSA Wednesbury point”);
  5. The delegate failed to properly assess the development application (“The proper assessment point”); and
  6. The delegate’s decision to approve the development application is an unreasonable decision (“The Wednesbury point”).

The proposed development

  1. [4]
    The Land is approximately 2183m2 in area with about 65m of frontage to Queen Street.  Immediately adjacent to the Land at 427 Queen Street is Brisbane Customs House (“Customs House”), which is on the Queensland State Heritage Register and the Brisbane City Council Local Heritage Register.  Customs House is owned by the applicant.[5]  The respondent’s officers submitted a Report and Recommendation document dated 14 December 2015 for consideration by the delegate. This document describes the proposed development as “a high density, high rise, multi-unit residential building” which comprises two basement levels, a ground level lobby, 1330.9m2 of public open space, 355m2 of retail and restaurant/café spaces, six levels of elevated and landscaped car parking, a communal recreation terrace and a 40 storey residential tower comprising 264 residential units (“the proposed development”).  It is also noted as part of the proposed development that new pedestrian connections between Queen Street and the Brisbane River will be provided.[6]  
  1. [5]
    The Land is located within the PC1 Principal Centre Zone – City Centre Precinct and within the City Centre Neighbourhood Plan (“CCNP”), NPP-002 Customs House Precinct under the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (“City Plan 2014”).

The decision of the delegate

  1. [6]
    The delegate of the respondent who made the decision in the Decision Notice is Mr Leeds. He is a Team Manager and delegate in the respondent’s Development Assessment City West Team. He was the delegate responsible for assessing and subsequently approving the allocation of the TSA and the development application.[7] 
  1. [7]
    On or about 10 November 2015 Mr Leeds reviewed the co-respondent’s calculation of Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) which had been submitted as part of the development application. He formed the view that pursuant to the City Centre Neighbourhood Plan Code (“CCNPC”) the proposed development required impact assessment and on 10 November 2015 he caused a “not properly made” notice to be issued to the co-respondent.[8]  This elicited the changed development application which included the nomination of 300m2 of TSA “to be transferred to the Proposed Development”.[9] There were no other significant changes to the development application. The other changes consisted of minor design alterations addressing on site vehicle manoeuvrability and parking provision. There was no increase in the size of the proposed development.[10] Mr Leeds then formed the view that the additional TSA meant that the GFA complied with AO1 of the CCNPC. He was of the opinion that the inclusion of the TSA was such that the development application was then code assessable.[11]  Mr Leeds then proceeded to assess and approve the nomination of TSA and the development application.  In circumstances where he was of the view that the development application could only be approved as code assessable in conjunction with the transfer of the TSA, he took the view that the transfer of the TSA and the approval of the development application were “inextricably linked” and he therefore approved both the transfer of the TSA and the development application together, although he recorded his decisions separately.[12]. The Decision Notice therefore makes no reference to the TSA. The approval of the transfer of the TSA is contained in a separate document.[13]

The proper approach to the interpretation of the planning scheme

  1. [8]
    The development application and the application for transfer of TSA were assessed and decided pursuant to City Plan 2014.
  1. [9]
    In construing the relevant provisions of City Plan 2014 it is important to have regard to the applicable principles of statutory interpretation. As was noted by Morrison JA in Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors:[14]

“The resolution of many of the issues in the appeals turns on the interpretation of the parts of the City Plan and TAPS Code.  It is appropriate, therefore, to note the principles applicable to that task.

The same principles which apply to statutory construction apply to the construction of planning documents.  The High Court in Project Sky Blue Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority said:

The primary object of statutory construction it to construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statue.  The meaning of the provision must be determined “by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole”.  In Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos, Dixon CJ pointed out that “the context, the general purpose and policy of a provision and its consistency and fairness are surer guides to its meaning than the logic with which it is constructed”.  Thus, the process of construction must always begin by examining the context of the provision that is being construed.

A legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals.  Where conflict appears to arise from the language of particular provisions, the conflict must be alleviated, so far as possible, by adjusting the meaning of the competing provisions to achieve that result which will best give effect to the purpose and language of those provisions while maintaining the unity of all the statutory provisions.  Reconciling conflicting provisions will often require the court “to determine which is the leading provision and the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other”.  Only by determining the hierarchy of the provisions will it be possible in many cases to give each provision the meaning which best gives effect to its purpose and language while maintaining the unity of the statutory scheme.

Furthermore, a court construing a statutory provision must strive to give meaning to every word of the provision. In The Commonwealth v Baume Griffith CJ cited R v Berchet to support the proposition that it was “a known rule in the interpretation of Statutes that such a sense is to be made upon the whole as that no clause, sentence, or word shall prove superfluous, void, or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent”.

…

However, the duty of a court is to give the words of a statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have. Ordinarily, that meaning (the legal meaning) will correspond with the grammatical meaning of the provision. But not always. The context of the words, the consequences of a literal or grammatical construction, the purpose of the statute or the canons of construction may require the words of a legislative provision to be read in a way that does not correspond with the literal or grammatical meaning …

…

The fact that planning documents are to be construed precisely in the same way as statues still allows for the expressed view that such documents need to be read in a way which is practical, and read as a whole and as intending to achieve balance between outcomes.”

The level of assessment point

  1. [10]
    The delegate’s power to assess and decide the development application as code assessable only arose if:
  1. (a)
    The GFA of the proposed development was less than the GFA specified in Table 7.2.3.7.3.C of the CCNPC;[15] and
  2. (b)
    The use, being Multiple dwelling, was not located in a portion of the building below maximum podium height.[16]
  1. [11]
    The applicant asserts that the development application was always impact assessable as neither of the above requirements were met. It is submitted that the delegate fell into error in purporting to assess the development application as code assessable and that this error is properly characterised as a jurisdictional error. The character of a jurisdictional error was explained by the High Court in Craig v South Australia[17] in the following terms:

“If such an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal's exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. Such an error of law is jurisdictional error which will invalidate any order or decision of the tribunal which reflects it.”

  1. [12]
    The question of whether or not the development application was indeed code assessable, to paraphrase French CJ in Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia and Anor,[18]  allows for only one correct answer, which is either yes or no. This constitutes a jurisdictional fact, and is not a matter of discretion. If the delegate answered the question incorrectly, he was acting in excess of his jurisdiction.
  1. [13]
    When considering the first basis for the assertion that the delegate fell into jurisdictional error it is necessary to consider in detail the following provisions of the CCNPC:

“Table 7.2.3.7.3.B – Maximum building height

Development

Number of storeys (above maximum podium height)

Development of a site with a principal frontage less than 20m

 

8

Development of a site with a principal frontage equal to or greater than 20m

Number of storeys is not specified where gross floor area complies with Table 7.2.3.7.3.C

Note – For a site with a principal frontage equal to or greater than 20m, building height is governed by the amount of gross floor area developable above maximum podium height.  Gross floor area for that part of a building above maximum podium height must not exceed the development ratio multiplied by the area of the site calculated in accordance with the equation specified in Table 7.2.3.7.3.D

Note – Achievement of these outcomes can be illustrated with a report as outlined in the Public realm engagement report section of this neighbourhood plan.

Note – Maximum podium height for the purpose of calculating gross floor area is 20m.  Podiums are of a low scale – 3 to 4 standard height storeys that maintain an interesting, pedestrian friendly and human-scale presence in the street, or is another scale that exhibits a strongly positive relationship with nearby buildings and/or their podium.  The minimum standard floor height in the podium is 3.3m.

Table 7.2.3.7.3.C – Maximum gross floor area

Development

Site cover (above maximum podium height)

Gross floor area (above maximum podium height)

Development of a site with a principal frontage less than 20m

 

60%

 

4 x SA

Development of a site with a principal frontage equal to or greater than 20m

Not specified

 

DR x SA

Note – Abbreviations used in the calculation of gross floor area in Table 7.2.3.7.3.C and Table 7.2.3.7.3.D are as follows:

  • GFA – gross floor area;
  • DR – development ratio;
  • CSC – city site cover;
  • SA – site area
  • STA – average area of storeys

Note – For calculation of STA: where 20 storeys or fewer, the average those storeys; where more than 20 storeys, the average of those storeys that have the largest areas (a storey being the area of a storey on a horizontal plane).

Note – STA calculation excludes any level:

  • with an area less than 25% of the site area, where the site area is less than 200m2; or
  • with an area less than 500m2, where the site area is not less than 2,000m2

Note – The storeys to be included in calculation of CSC are illustrated in Figure i:

  • A indicates storeys which measurements are included in the calculation of STA;
  • B indicates storeys which measurements are not included in the calculation of STA, as 20 other storeys of larger or equivalent measurement are taken as the basis of the calculations;
  • C indicates storeys too small to be included in the calculation of STA.

Note – The methodology to determine DR is specified in Table 7.2.3.7.3.D.

Note – Gross floor area is not limited where CSC is less than 0.45.

Table 7.2.3.7.3.D – Calculation of gross floor area

Step

Process

Equation

1

Determine SA

Not applicable

2

Determine STA

-

3

Calculate CSC

CSC = STA / SA

4

Calculate DR

DR = unlimited (where CSC is less than 0.45)

DR = 38– 40* CSC (where CSC is between 0.45 and 0.55)

DR= 15– 10* CSC (where CSC is 0.56 or more)

5

Calculate GFA

DR x SA

 

  1. [14]
    The notes identified by the title “Note” are part of City Plan 2014.[19]  The definition of GFA is also instructive:[20]

Gross floor area

The total floor area of all storeys of the building (measured from the outside of the external walls or the centre of a common wall), other than areas used for the following:

  1. (a)
    building services, plant and equipment;
  2. (b)
    access between levels;
  3. (c)
    ground floor public lobby;
  4. (d)
    a mall;
  5. (e)
    the parking, loading or manoeuvring of motor vehicles;
  6. (f)
    unclosed private balconies, whether roofed or not.
  1. [15]
    The calculations relevant to this issue have been simplified by admissions made by the parties in the following terms[21]:

“1. that the site area is 2,183.3m2.

 

  1. that the GFA of the proposed development is 31,553.4m2.
  2. that if Carpark Level 1 is not included in the calculation of GFA pursuant to Table 7.2.3.7.3.D, and if DR is calculated using DR= 38 – 40* CSC (where the CSC is .550748866), the allowable maximum GFA above maximum podium height is 34,867.4m2.
  3. that if Carpark Level 1 is included in the calculation of GFA pursuant to Table 7.2.3.7.3.D, the allowable maximum GFA above maximum podium height is 20,407m2.
  4. that if the site area is 2,483.3m2 (i.e. inclusive of the 300m2 TSA), and if Carpark Level 1 is included in the calculation of GFA pursuant to Table 7.2.3.7.3.D, the maximum allowable GFA above maximum podium height is 44,995m2.
  5. that if Carpark Level 1 is not included in the calculation of GFA pursuant to Table 7.2.3.7.3.D, and if DR is calculated using DR = 15 –10 * CSC, the maximum allowable GFA above maximum podium height is 20,724.975m2.”
  1. [16]
    As can be seen from the calculations above the first area of contention is whether or not Carpark Level 1 should be included as one of the storeys that have the largest areas. Carpark Level 1 has a GFA of 1,629m2.[22]  Of this 150m2 is above maximum podium height as defined above.[23]  This amounts however to two thirds of the volume of Carpark Level 1.[24]
  1. [17]
    The term storey is defined in the planning scheme in the following terms:[25]

Storey

A space that is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above, or if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above, but not a space that contains only:

  1. (a)
    a lift shaft, stairway or meter room
  2. (b)
    a bathroom, shower room, laundry, water closet, or other sanitary compartment
  3. (c)
    a combination of the above.

A mezzanine is a storey.

A roofed structure on or part of a rooftop that does not solely accommodate building plant and equipment is a storey.

A basement is not a storey.

  1. [18]
    The appellant relies upon this definition in support of its argument that a volumetric calculation of the amount of Carpark Level 1 which exceeds maximum podium height is appropriate. However, the relevant note quoted above pursuant to Table 7.2.3.7.3.C states that, in calculating the average area of storeys (“STA”) and the average of the storeys that have the largest areas, a storey is “the area of a storey on a horizontal plane”. The notes further state that the calculation of STA excludes any level “with an area less then 500m2, where the site area is not less than 2,000m2”. As noted above the site area of the proposed development is 2,183.3m2.
  1. [19]
    The above provisions state that “The storeys to be included in calculation of CSC are illustrated in Figure i”.[26] The applicant seeks to further advance its argument that Carpark Level 1 should be included in calculating STA by virtue of the maximum podium height in this figure being shown to pass through the middle of the relevant storey which is shown in the three illustrations.  Figure i is merely illustrative.  It does not allow for the circumstance that is relevant to Carpark Level 1 where, because of the slope of the natural ground level of the Land, maximum podium height is not the product of a simple horizontal line.  There are also internal inconsistencies in the illustrations. In particular, it is unclear precisely which storeys come within which categories.[27]  Again, Figure i is intended to be illustrative only. It should not be afforded a meaning which detracts from the clear words of the relevant provisions which I have quoted above.  The approach of the applicant, that the extent of Carpark Level 1 above maximum podium height should be calculated volumetrically, does not accord with the wording of the relevant provisions quoted above. The wording is clear that only the horizontal plane is relevant.  As the area above maximum podium height, being 150m2on the horizontal plane, is less than 500m2, this level is excluded from the calculation of STA, and Carpark Level 1 should not be included in the calculation of GFA.
  1. [20]
    The other basis upon which the applicant asserts that the allowable maximum GFA above maximum podium height is exceeded is in the calculation of the development ratio. The applicant submits that as the city site cover (“CSC”) is 0.55074866, the development ratio should have been 15 – 10* CSC since the CSC should have been assessed as being 0.56 or more. It is submitted that there is a lacuna in Table 7.2.3.7.3.D and therefore it is appropriate to round the CSC up to 0.56. The CSC is expressed as a figure calculated to two decimal places in the Table. The CSC calculated by the co-respondent falls within the range expressed to two decimal places. It is not 0.56 and it is not more than 0.56. The appropriate formula to apply was therefore 38 – 40* CSC.
  1. [21]
    It follows that the original development application was in fact code assessable, so far as the calculation of GFA is concerned, and there was no need for the applicant to submit the changed application. Suffice to say that from the perspective of GFA the changed application was code assessable.
  1. [22]
    The second basis on which the applicant alleges that the development application was impact assessable was because the Multiple dwelling use was located in the portion of the building below maximum podium height. Maximum podium height is not expressly defined in City Plan 2014. The only explanation of it is set out in the notes to Table 7.2.3.7.3.B quoted above. Having regard to the principles of construction discussed in Zappala Family Co v Brisbane City Council[28] consistency dictates that this definition apply here as well.  Accordingly the argument is that if Carpark Level 1 is below maximum podium height the car parks are part of the Multiple dwelling use. 
  1. [23]
    The definition of use in SPA is central to this argument. It “includes any use incidental to and necessarily associated with the use of the premises.”[29]  The meaning of such a definition was considered by the Court of Appeal in Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council.[30] The court emphasised the need for the use in question to be “necessarily associated” with the other use of the premises.  In the context of determining that the screening and crushing of gravel was not a use incidental to and necessarily associated with a lawful use of gravel extraction, the court observed:

“The present case should be distinguished from one where a challenged process could be regarded as inevitably involved in a permitted use.  Also, there could be a case of a different kind where there exists only one significant use and a further use only arguably and insignificantly present so that it might be regarded as no more than merely technically in existence.”[31]

  1. [24]
    A car park is not a separately defined use in City Plan 2014. The only use which relates to the parking of vehicles is a Parking station which is defined as “Premises used for parking vehicles where the parking is not ancillary to another use.”[32]  Multiple dwelling is defined as “premises that contain three or more dwellings for separate households”[33].  Dwelling is defined as follows[34]:

Dwelling

A building or part of a building used or capable of being used as a self-contained residence that must include the following:

  1. (a)
    food preparation facilities;
  2. (b)
    a bath or shower;
  3. (c)
    a toilet and wash basin;
  4. (d)
    clothes washing facilities.

This term includes outbuildings, structures and works normally associated with a dwelling.

  1. [25]
    The report in support of the development application states that:

“The proposed development provides a total of 277 car parking spaces, including 259 resident spaces and 14 residential visitor spaces.  No spaces have been provided for the retail component.”[35]

  1. [26]
    The Decision Notice contains a condition in respect of car parking. It is in the following terms:

“The car parking within the premises must be maintained exclusively for the ancillary use of the development.  The parking must not be made available to the general public and there must not be any signage erected on or in the vicinity of the site advertising the availability of car parking to the general public.”[36]

  1. [27]
    The applicant argues that the provision of car parking below maximum podium height is part of the Multiple dwelling use in the proposed development as it is incidental to and necessarily associated with it. It relies on the treatment of car parking within the proposed development and the failure of the co-respondent to apply for a separate use with respect to the six levels of parking in the building in support of this argument.
  1. [28]
    This alleged consequence may, however, be subject to a contrary intention being shown in the relevant provisions of the City Plan 2014.[37]  Again returning to the principles of construction outlined in Zappala Family Co v Brisbane City Council,[38]  City Plan 2014 must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals  In this regard I note that the purpose of the CCNPC includes the following paragraphs:

“ (q) The lowest levels of new development are occupied by retail, commercial or community uses to provide City Centre activities close to the pedestrian public realm;

(r) Car parking is located underground and the design of podium levels facilitates occupation and activity that creates an attractive pedestrian environment in adjourning areas while promoting safety through use and casual surveillance.”[39]

  1. [29]
    The applicant seeks to extend the parts of the car parks below maximum podium height which are incidental to and necessarily associated with the Multiple dwelling use to the access ramps within the car parks. This is perhaps the best indication of why the expanded definition of use in SPA is not intended to apply to car parking within the building. The co-respondent rightly asserts there are numerous activities incidental to and necessarily associated with Multiple dwellings in a tower that are located below maximum podium height including lobby and reception areas, access areas (including lifts) and recreational areas, which would all trigger impact assessment pursuant to the interpretation contended for by the applicant. Perhaps the best indication of the manifestation of the respondent’s intention that areas used for car parking are not to be considered part of the Multiple dwelling use is that they are, along with similar features of the building such as those referred to above, expressly excluded from the definition of GFA.[40] 
  1. [30]
    Most fundamentally however, is the need to give effect to the provisions of the CCNPC discussed above which permit significant developments incorporating Multiple dwellings to be code assessable. This requires an interpretation of the City Plan 2014 which excludes car parking from this use. The purpose of the CCNPC contemplates not only car parking but also retail, commercial and community uses below the Multiple dwellings in code assessable developments. In circumstances where the definition of Multiple dwelling does not refer to car parking or access facilities such as lobbies and lifts as part of the use and given the impossibility of constructing dwellings above maximum podium height which do not have access to either motorists or pedestrians below maximum podium height, it is necessary to adjust the definition of use in SPA even in circumstances where the car parking below maximum podium height can be viewed as necessary and incidental to the Multiple dwelling uses above. This is necessary to give effect to the realities of using and accessing Multiple dwellings in the CCNP area and the statutory intention in City Plan 2014 that in certain circumstances Multiple dwellings above maximum podium height are intended to be code assessable. I appreciate that in a different context, applying provisions of a different planning scheme another judge of this court has recently reached a different conclusion.[41] However I find City Plan 2014 read as a whole demonstrates that car parking is not considered to be part of a Multiple dwelling use in the CCNP area. Accordingly no part of the proposed Multiple dwelling use was intended to be located in a portion of the building below maximum podium height.

The instrument of delegation point

  1. [31]
    The applicant submits that the decision of the respondent’s delegate, Mr Leeds, in purporting to approve the allocation of TSA was ultra vires because the delegated authority he purportedly acted under did not extend to the approval of a request to allocate TSA. In the instrument of delegation it is stated that each of the functions and powers delegated includes the power to do things “if doing so is incidental to or entailed by the exercise of the functions and powers”.[42]  At the outset it is important to realise that SPA makes no mention of TSA.  It is a process entirely governed by the provisions of City Plan 2014.  In this regard the allocation of TSA and the process for its transfer is set out in Table 7.2.3.7.3.E and the notes which follow it. Relevantly these notes state:

“Note – If conservation of a heritage place is certain, the Council may approve the allocation of the transferable site area stipulated in Table 7.2.3.7.3.E, either in full or in part where not less than 300m2, at the request of the owner of the heritage place.  This area may be transferred to another site within the neighbourhood plan area for the purpose of calculating the extent of the development that may be carried out on that site.  In determining whether to approve the allocation of transferable site area, the Council will have regard to the capacity of the site to accommodate the additional development (emphasis added), particularly site area, frontage and locational characteristics and the relative increase to development yield as a consequence of added transferable site area.

Note – Council may also approve the further transfer of transferable site area listed on the register, where not less than 300m2.  Any additional transfer is to be notated in the register.  The register should be referred to in determining the current allocations affecting a site.

Note – Where a heritage place has been substantially destroyed or has deteriorated beyond reasonable repair, the Council will not approve the adding of its transferable site area to another site.  The site to which any transferable site area or part thereof may be added, shall not be, or include the land to which that transferable site area was originally allocated.  

Note – Where transferable site area has been purchased and is attached to a site, that site retains the rights to any additional site area accrued under any superseded planning scheme.    

Note – Transferable development rights (site area) – Where Council is satisfied that the conservation of a heritage place is assured, the Council may approve of adding the transferable site area stipulated in Table 7.2.3.7.3.E with respect to that heritage place, or part of that transferable site area generally not less than 300m2, to the area of some site nominated by the owner of that heritage place and in the City Centre neighbourhood plan area, for the purpose of calculating the extent of development that may be carried out on that site.  In determining whether to approve the adding of transferable site area, the Council will have regard to the capacity of the site to accommodate an acceptable development proposal (emphasis added) by the adding of that transferable site area, particularly considering the current area of the site, its frontage and the relative change to its development yield as a consequence of added transferable site area.  Where transferable development rights under the superseded planning scheme have been purchased and are attached to a site, that site retains the rights to additional site area accrued under the superseded scheme.  The transferable site area specified Table 7.2.3.7.3.E indicates the original allocations.  Council may approve transfers to these allocations.  Council will keep a transferable site area register that records: the description of any site from which the Council has approved any transferable site area; the quantity of the transferable site area; and the description of the site to which any of the transferable site has been added.”

  1. [32]
    As can be seen from the forgoing there is nothing which suggests that the assessment of an application to transfer TSA and the approval of such an application may not be assessed as being incidental to a development application pursuant to SPA. The purpose of additional TSA is to increase the capacity for development of a site that is or may be the subject of a development application pursuant to SPA. While separate applications could have been made, there is no restriction upon a party bringing an application for the transfer of TSA as incidental to an application for a development approval pursuant to SPA. In the circumstance where the delegate is exercising the functions and powers delegated to him, his assessment and approval of the transfer of TSA is incidental to or entailed via the exercise of his delegated functions and powers to assess and determine the development application pursuant to SPA. Mr Leeds therefore had the power to assess and determine the application in respect of TSA pursuant to the instrument of delegation in the manner in which he did.

The TSA proper assessment point

  1. [33]
    The applicant submits that Mr Leeds did not consider specific criteria which he was required to consider in determining whether to approve the transfer of the TSA to the Land. Furthermore in approving the allocation of the TSA, it is submitted that Mr Leeds did not take into account a relevant consideration, namely the deleterious effect of the additional yield afforded to the Land on the adjourning Customs House. It is therefore submitted that the decision of Mr Leeds to allocate the TSA was unlawful.
  1. [34]
    At the core of this argument is the submission that the “extent of development that may be carried out on” a site that was allocated the TSA is not necessarily determined by a specific proposal. In this regard the first of the notes quoted above appears to address the scenario which confronted Mr Leeds as it contemplates calculating the extent of development that may be carried out in the context of accommodating “the additional development”.[43]  Conversely the scenario contemplated by the final note quoted above involves the exercise being undertaken, having regard to the capacity of the site “to accommodate an acceptable development proposal by the adding of that transferable site area”. The evidence of Mr Leeds was that he approached the assessment and determination of the application to transfer TSA in the context of the development application which he was considering.[44]  He did so in circumstances where he formed the view that the application for the transfer of the TSA and the development application were inextricably linked.[45]  Mr Leeds confirmed his position under cross-examination when he stated that the respondent “assessed the transfer and the application as one”.[46]
  1. [35]
    The approach taken by Mr Leeds appears to accord with what is contemplated in the first note referred to above[47], which is where the nomination of TSA occurs in the context of a development application. The final note referred to above[48] deals with a circumstance where there is an application for allocation of TSA in the absence of a definitive development proposal.  By interpreting the relevant provisions of City Plan 2014 in this way, I am striving to give meaning to every word of the relevant provisions.[49] If I am wrong in this regard and it was indeed necessary for Mr Leeds to further consider matters set out in the final note referred to above[50], I am satisfied that he did so in any event.  Despite the fact that the additional TSA which was nominated by the co-respondent did not change the yield contemplated by the development application, it is clear that Mr Leeds also compared what was proposed with a theoretical building which could be built with the additional TSA.[51]
  1. [36]
    On either basis Mr Leeds undertook the exercises required of him in assessing and approving the TSA pursuant to the relevant provisions of City Plan 2014. There was no specific requirement that he consider the deleterious effect any additional development yield specifically from the perspective of Customs House.

The TSA Wednesbury Point

  1. [37]
    The applicant submits that the decision to approve the allocation of the TSA was unreasonable. In this regard the applicant relies on what is commonly referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. This concept was ­­­­succinctly explained several years ago by Rackemann DCJ in Bon Accord Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council:[52]

“The test has been described as “stringent” and “extremely confined”. It is not sufficient to establish that, as a matter of merit, a different decision ought to have been preferred. What must be established is that no decision maker, acting reasonably, could have made that decision.”

  1. [38]
    The concept has been more recently considered by the High Court, notably in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li.[53]  The approach of the High Court in this case was in turn helpfully distilled by Gotterson JA in the recent decision of Flegg v CMC & Anor[54] in the following terms:

“The separate reasons for judgment contain observations on the ambit of unreasonableness as a ground of review. In a joint judgment, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ observed that Wednesbury is not the starting point for the standard of unreasonableness, nor should it be considered the end point. Their Honours continued:

“The legal standard of unreasonableness should not be considered as limited to what is in effect an irrational, if not bizarre, decision − which is to say one that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have arrived at it – nor should Lord Greene MR be taken to have limited unreasonableness in this way in his judgment in Wednesbury. This aspect of his Lordship’s judgment may more sensibly be taken to recognise that an inference of unreasonableness may in some cases be objectively drawn even where a particular error in reasoning cannot be identified.

Bad faith, dishonesty... unreasonableness, attention given to extraneous circumstances, disregard of public policy’ were all relevant to the question of whether a statutory discretion was exercised reasonably.

Unreasonableness is a conclusion which may be applied to a decision which lacks an evident and intelligible justification.

In separate reasons in Li, French CJ reminded that the ground was not a vehicle for challenging a decision on the basis that the decision-maker has given insufficient or excessive consideration to some matters or has made an evaluative judgment with which the Court disagrees even though that judgment is rationally open to the decision-maker. Gageler J described the test for unreasonableness as stringent, noting that judicial determination of Wednesbury unreasonableness in Australia has in practice been rare.”

  1. [39]
    The applicant concedes that the TSA allocated to the Land by Mr Leeds does not form part of the fee simple of the land but remains a propriety right capable of assignment and transfer.[55]  The effect of his decision was to enhance the ability to develop the site through the amendment of the appropriate registrar pursuant to City Plan 2014.  It is submitted that the decision to this effect was unreasonable because Mr Leeds approached the question of whether or not the TSA should be allocated to the site on the basis of the approval of the allocation being inextricably linked to the development application.  It is submitted that this resulted in an unreasonable decision in the sense discussed above.
  1. [40]
    To the extent that Mr Leeds was obliged to consider the capacity of the site to accommodate an acceptable development proposal, as opposed to the relative increase to development yield as a consequence of the TSA in the context of the development application being considered by him, I am satisfied that he did so for the reasons stated above.[56] His decision in this regard was therefore not unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

The proper assessment point

  1. [41]
    The applicant submits that Mr Leeds, in assessing and deciding the development application, failed to take into account relevant considerations. In doing so he erred and this error is a jurisdictional error. In particular it is alleged that in assessing and deciding the development application Mr Leeds failed to take into account that it failed to comply with PO1, PO2, AO2 and PO6 of the CCNPC.
  1. [42]
    The rules which apply in determining assessment criteria for code assessable development are set out in s 5.3.3 of City Plan 2014. Relevantly it is stated:

“(c)  for code assessable development:

  1. (i)
    development must be assessed against all the applicable codes identified in the assessment criteria column;

…

  1. (iii)
    development that complies with:
  1. (a)
     the purpose and overall outcomes of the code complies with the code;
  2. (b)
     the performance or acceptable outcomes where prescribed complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code;

…”

  1. [43]
    So far as the CCNPC is concerned the criteria for assessable development as set out in Table 7.2.3.7.3.A. Relevantly it is stated:

Table 7.2.3.7.3.A – Criteria for assessable development

Performance outcomes

Acceptable outcomes

General

 

PO1

Development is of a height, scale and form that achieves the intended outcomes for the precinct, improves the amenity of the neighbourhood plan area, contributes to a cohesive streetscape and built form character and is:

  1. (a)
    consistent with anticipated density and assumed infrastructure demand;
  2. (b)
    aligned to community expectations about the number of storeys to be built;
  3. (c)
    proportionate to and commensurate with the utility of the site area and frontage width;
  4. (d)
    designed so as not to cause significant and undue adverse amenity impact to adjoining development;
  5. (e)
    sited to enable existing and future buildings to be well separated from each other and to not prejudice the development of adjourning sites.

Note – Development that exceeds the intended number of storeys or building height can place disproportionate pressure on the transport network, public space or community facilities in particular.

Note – Development that is over-scaled for its site can result in an undesirable dominance of vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring areas that significantly reduce streetscape character and amenity.

Note – Maximum gross floor area provisions do not apply within centres in the City Centre neighbourhood plan area.      

AO1

Development complies with the number of storeys, building height and gross floor area specified in Table 7.2.3.7.3.B and Table 7.2.3.7.3.C.

Note – Table 7.2.3.7.3.D provides the method for calculating maximum gross floor area.

Note – Neighbourhood plans will mostly specify a maximum number of storeys where zone outcomes have been varied in relation to building height. Some neighbourhood plans may also specify height in metres.  Development must comply with both parameters where maximum number of storeys and height in metres are specified.

Note – Where sites are within the Airport environs overlay buildings must be consistent with the provisions of the State Planning Policy,

Part D – Planning for Infrastructure; Strategic airports and aviation facilities, and obtain any other relevant approval as required regarding the safety and efficiency of operational airspace.

Note – Building heights must also comply with Figure h.   

Building form, height, gross floor area and site cover

PO2

Development:

  1. (a)
    on sites with frontage wider than 20m comprises a low-level podium that covers most or all of the site, and a tower above the podium that has a low site cover;
  2. (b)
    in the part of the city identified in Figure a as ‘tower in plaza’, new spaces and development provide a continuation of this identity, with substantial areas of  the ground plane given over to public access and incorporating strong visual linkages between the street system and the river.

AO2

Development of a site with a principal frontage of at least 20m:

  1. (a)
    provides buildings that exhibit a well-defined low-level podium covering the whole of the site and 1 or more towers above the podium;
  2. (b)
    ensures that in the ‘tower in plaza’ area identified in Figure a, buildings are in the form of a tower with public plaza at street level with:
  1. (i)
    building footprints not exceeding more than 50% of the site;
  1. (ii)
    towers set back at least 10m from the inner edge of the river public promenade. 

….

….

PO6

Development provides:

  1. (a)
    front building setbacks above maximum podium height which are sufficient to ensure the building:
  1. (i)
    does not create a visual or physical canyon or curtain-like effect;
  2. (ii)
    does not dominate the street or other pedestrian spaces;
  3. (iii)
    has a clear definition between the podium and the tower levels;
  4. (iv)
    does not result in any greater perception of bulk, scale and height of the building from the street compared with what would have been perceived in a building complying with the acceptable outcome;
  5. (v)
    protects important views and vistas identified in Figure b;
  6. (vi)
    ensures the sense of the city grid is maintained and formed more strongly by the regular alignment of towers set back from the street;
  7. (vii)
    does not block view corridors identified in Figure b.
  1. (b)
    rear and side setbacks above maximum podium height  to ensure existing and any possible future buildings are well separated from each other to allow light penetration and air circulation , privacy, and ensure windows are not built out by adjourning buildings.

AO6.1

Development provides a minimum building setback above maximum podium height of 6m from the road alignment.

AO6.2

Development provides minimum rear and side boundary setbacks above maximum podium height of 5m, or 10m for residential components if the windows of habitable rooms are oriented towards that boundary.

AO6.3

Development on a site with a principal frontage of less than 20m and complying with AO1 the minimum side boundary setback is reduced to 2m where not containing windows or habitable rooms.

AO6.4

Development ensures that no part of a building above maximum podium height is built to the boundary with a blank wall, unless to align with an existing blank wall which is likely to remain, on a common boundary with an adjourning side.

  1. [44]
    In assessing the development application Mr Leeds had the benefit of the report prepared by council officers dated 14 December 2015.[57]  It was comprehensive and addressed each of the criteria for assessable development in the CCNPC referred to above.  In respect of AO1 it stated:

“In response to Council’s ‘not properly made’ notice being issued, the applicant on 18 November 2015 amended the application to include transferable site area.

A recalculation of maximum allowable GFA above maximum podium height was carried out using the additional purchased site area and the proposal based on the recalculation was now below the maximum development gross floor area (GDA) above maximum podium height specified by the City centre neighbourhood plan code.  The application proceeded as code assessable and continued through the IDAS process without going back to the acknowledgement stage.”[58] 

  1. [45]
    Given the findings made above in respect of GFA, the report correctly stated that there had been compliance with AO1.
  1. [46]
    So far as the balance of the criteria for assessable development in the CCNPC quoted above are concerned, the report stated:

“The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the City centre neighbourhood plan. The proposal meets the majority of the Acceptable Outcomes of this code and where there are matters of non-compliance, performance-based solutions which meet the relevant Performance Outcomes have been demonstrated below.[59]

  1. [47]
    Specifically with respect to PO2 and AO2 the report stated:[60]

Performance Solution

The sites frontage is greater than 20m and the plaza level covers the majority of the site.  The tower above has a variable site building footprint and lower site cover to the plaza below.

As shown in Figure A, the site is identified as being within the ‘Tower in plaza’ area.  The building footprint ranges between 45% of 72%, which can be averaged out to 55%.

The proposal includes substantial publically accessible areas (more than half of the ground plane) throughout extensive and accessible landscape of 443 Queen Street.  The proposal will extend the proposed green boulevard of Queen Street right to the river edge and serve to amplify the green subtropical network, also importantly in the vertical dimension, enhancing the green quality of the city at the urban scale.

The site is an important link and extension of the riverside walking network, the City Reach riverfront walkways and dining precinct, linking through to the Howard Smith Wharf precinct.

Overall, the design provides a public domain that creates a strong link between city streets and river edge, opens and frames important vistas, allows the free flow of pedestrians from city to river and creates great riverside places.

  1. [48]
    The Land is within the ‘Tower in plaza’ area referred to in City Plan 2014.[61]  Notwithstanding this, the applicant submits that PO2(a) and AO2(a) were relevant in the assessment of the development application.  As was conceded by Mr Leeds in cross-examination neither the planning officers who prepared the report nor he considered PO2(a) or AO2(a) relevant in the assessment of the development application.  This approach does not suggest jurisdictional error.  Mr Leeds was entitled to view the ‘Tower in plaza’ area differently to the balance of the area in the CCNP given its unique position adjacent to the river and the stated desire for strong visual linkages between the street system and the river. 
  1. [49]
    It is also alleged that it was necessary for Mr Leeds to consider the extent of departure from an acceptable outcome in the context of determining whether or not there had been compliance with a performance outcome and that he did not do this. There is no support for such an argument in the rules for determining assessment criteria mandated in s 5.3.3 of City Plan 2014 quoted above. Compliance with performance outcomes or acceptable outcomes are nominated as alternative ways for complying with the purpose and overall outcomes of a relevant code. There is no basis for importing an additional requirement of the type contended for by the applicant into the plain words of this provision.
  1. [50]
    The same argument is raised in respect of compliance with PO6 of the CCNPP. It is clear from a perusal of the relevant part of the report prepared by the council officers that compliance with PO6 was addressed:[62]

Performance Solution

The creation of a canyon-like effect is avoided through the design of raised car parking, which is elevated above the ground plane and plaza below

Variable setbacks from the road alignment range between 1.3m to 18m.  The variable setbacks are achieved by the fan-like design of the tower that folds away from the centre of the site to the side boundaries.  Although there are reduced setbacks as little as 1.3m from the road alignment, the majority of the tower is setback more than 6m from the front boundary.  This ensures the majority of the building bulk is set further back from the front boundary and hoes not create a visual canyon effect.

Clear definition between the plaza and tower levels is achieved through distinct variation in form, materials and landscape treatment.

The perception of bulk, scale and height is further reduced through the fan-like building form, which provides articulation and variation across the horizontal plane. 

The alignment of the tower maintains a regular line of built form along the street.  The existing view corridors and vistas are maintained and enhanced as demonstrated in the performance solution for PO3 above. 

  1. [51]
    There is no merit in the assertion by the applicant that the development application was not properly assessed by the council officers who prepared the report. It has not been demonstrated that Mr Leeds failed to take into account relevant considerations when assessing and approving the development application.

The Wednesbury point

  1. [52]
    The applicant also alleges that the decision of Mr Leeds to approve the development application is an unreasonable decision in the Wednesbury sense. For the reasons already canvased there is no merit in this argument. Although others may have decided the development application differently, it simply cannot be said that the decision was one which was not reasonably open to the delegate in the circumstances. It certainly is not a decision which lacked an evident and intelligible justification. In circumstances where there is no general rule of common law or principle requiring Mr Leeds to give reasons for his decision to approve the development application[63] and no requirement pursuant to SPA that he do so, there is no material before me which suggests that there is any merit in the argument that the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Conclusion

  1. [53]
    The applicant bears the onus of proving that the decision to approve the development application was infected by jurisdictional error. The evidence before me, including the evidence of Mr Leeds, is such that I cannot be satisfied that the Decision Notice is invalid and ought to be set aside. The development application was always code assessable. The change to it and the inclusion of the TSA took place in circumstances where there was a misapprehension as to whether this was the case. In any event the assessment of the application together with the application for the transfer of the TSA was conducted lawfully by a delegate operating within the extent of his jurisdiction to assess and determine such applications.
  1. [54]
    I therefore dismiss the originating application.

 

Footnotes

[1] Ex 1, Vol 4, p 1546, Ex 5, para 2.

[2] Ex 1, Vol 3, p 972.

[3] Ibid, p 981.

[4] Ibid, Vol 4, p 1542.

[5] Amended Statement of Facts, Matters and Contentions (“AMSFMC”), paras 1-5.

[6] Ex 1, Vol 4, p 1519.

[7] Ex 6, paras 1-4.

[8] Ibid, paras 10-13.

[9] Ibid, para 16, Ex 1, Vol 3, p 981.

[10] Ex 1, Vol 3, pp 972 – 979.

[11] Ex 6, paras 15 &16.

[12] Ibid, paras 26 & 27.

[13] Ex 1, Vol 4, pp 1542 – 1543.

[14] (2014) 201 LGERA 82 at 94-95.

[15] Ex 1, Vol 6, p 2119.

[16] Ibid, pp 2120 - 2121.

[17] (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179.

[18] (2012) 249 CLR 398 at 413.

[19] Section 1.3.2(3).

[20] Ex 1, Vol 6, pp 2229-2230.

[21] Ex 15.

[22] Ex 4, p 3.

[23] T3-22, ll 15-20. Ex 1, Vol 3, p 955.

[24] T3-22, ll 1-3.

[25] Schedule 1, Table SC1.2.2.B.

[26] Ex 1, Vol 6, p 2192.

[27] Ex 7, para 29.

[28] Op cit at 94-95.

[29] SPA Schedule 3.

[30] [1997] 2 Qd. R 31.

[31] Ibid, at 35.

[32] Schedule 1, Table SC1.1.1.B.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Schedule 1, Table SC1.2.2.B.

[35] Ex 1, Vol 1, p 48.

[36] Ex 1, Vol 4. p 1558.

[37] Pearce Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 5th Ed Butterworths 2001 at 6.62.

[38] Op cit at 94-95.

[39] Ex 1, Vol 6, p 2134.

[40] At paragraph [13].

[41] Body Corporate for Surfers International Community Titles Scheme 12247 & Anor v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2016] QPEC 29.

[42] Ex 1, Vol 6, p 2077.

[43] At paragraph [30].

[44] Ex 6, paras 17, 18, 23, and 24.

[45] Ex 6, para 27.

[46] T4-15, ll 40-45.

[47] At paragraph [31].

[48] Ibid.

[49] Applying Zappala Family Co v Brisbane City Council, op cit at 94.

[50] At paragraph [31].

[51] T4-19, ll 40-50, and T4-20, ll 15-25.

[52] [2010] QPELR 23 at 48.

[53] [2013] HCA 18.

[54] [2014] QCA 42 at [14] – [16].

[55] Application of FAI Hearing Pty Ltd (1993) 81 LGERA 210 at 217.

[56] At paragraphs [33] – [36].

[57] Ex 1, Vol 4, at 1517.

[58] Ibid, p 1521.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid, at 1522.

[61] Ex 1, Vol 6, p 2185.

[62] Ex 1, Vol 4, p 1526.

[63] Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1985 - 1986) 159 CLR 656 at 662.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council & CBUS Property Brisbane Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2016] QPEC 35

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Everson DCJ

  • Date:

    22 Jul 2016

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2016] QPEC 3522 Jul 2016-
Notice of Appeal FiledFile Number: Appeal 8918/1601 Sep 2016-
Appeal Discontinued (QCA)File Number: Appeal 8918/1610 Nov 2016Appeal dismissed by consent.

Appeal Status

Appeal Discontinued (QCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Application of FAI Hearing Pty Ltd (1993) 81 LGERA 210
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1993) 81 LGERA 210
Body Corporate for Surfers International Community Titles Scheme 12247 v Gold Coast City Council [2016] QPEC 29
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QPEC 29
Cite 2 - [2016] QPEC 29
Bon Accord v Brisbane City Council (2010) QPELR 23
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2010) QPELR 23
Cite 2 - (2010) QPELR 23
Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council[1997] 2 Qd R 31; [1996] QCA 249
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1997] 2 Qd R 31
Cite 2 - [1997] 2 Qd R 31
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 184 CLR 163
Cite 2 - (1995) 184 CLR 163
Flegg v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 42
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCA 42
Cite 2 - [2014] QCA 42
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] HCA 18
Cite 2 - [2013] HCA 18
Public Service Association of South Australia Inc v Industrial Relations Commission (SA) (2012) 249 CLR 398
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2012) 249 CLR 398
Cite 2 - (2012) 249 CLR 398
Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1986) 159 CLR 656
Zappala Family Company Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2014) 201 LGERA 82
Cite 2 - (2014) 201 LGERA 82

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.