Stevenson Group Investments Pty Ltd v Nunn & Ors

[2012] QCA 351

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Consents, approvals, permits and agreements
4. › Building permit issued by private certifier
5. › Alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements
6. › Whether non-compliance rendered permit void and of no legal effect
7. › Whether jurisdictional error
8. › Substantial compliance provision
9. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), ss 3.3.3, 3.5.13(3)(a), 4.1.5A, 5.3.4
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Development control
3. › Declarations
4. › Discretion to grant declaration under s 4.1.21 IPA
5. › Building completed and on-sold years before declaration sought
6. › Whether delay and public policy considerations precluded exercise of discretion
7. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.21
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Mandatory and directory provisions
3. › Whether breach of statutory condition renders subsequent act invalid
4. › Legislative purpose test
5. › Public inconvenience
6. › Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 applied
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Planning and Environment Court
4. › Ordinary rule that each party bears own costs
5. › Exception for frivolous or vexatious proceedings
6. › Whether proceeding frivolous or vexatious where novel arguments raised
7. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.23(2)(b)

Quick Take

Non-compliance with referral agency, plan consistency, and building condition requirements under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) does not constitute jurisdictional error rendering a building permit void where the IDAS process was properly initiated, and the substantial compliance provision in s 4.1.5A remains available. The discretion to grant a declaration of invalidity under s 4.1.21 will not be exercised where the building has been completed and on-sold years before the declaration is sought, the relevant public authorities do not support the declaration, and the declaration would be futile. The 'frivolous or vexatious' threshold under s 4.1.23(2)(b) for departing from the ordinary costs rule may be met where a proceeding is always without real prospects of success and causes serious and unjustified trouble and harassment, even where the applicant acted in good faith.