Pike v Tighe [2018] HCA 9

Pike v Tighe [2018] HCA 9

Section 245(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) imposes obligations from a development approval, including conditions, that run with the land and bind successors in title, such that if those conditions (e.g. providing an easement) are not met, a successor in title commits a development offence if given a reasonable opportunity to comply, empowering the Court to make enforcement orders against them.

Parties
Appellants: Joshua James Pike & Anor; Respondents: Kym Louise Tighe & Ors; Second Respondent: Second respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Development Approval Conditions, Successors in Title Liability, Enforcement Orders, Statutory Construction
Town Planning Property Law Statutory Interpretation Development Approval Conditions Successors in Title Liability Enforcement Orders Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua James Pike & Anor

Appellants

Kym Louise Tighe & Ors

Respondents

Second respondent

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 245 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) obliges a successor in title to comply with a reconfiguration condition not satisfied by original owner
  2. 2 Whether the Planning and Environment Court may make an enforcement order against successor in title under ss 601, 604 and 605

Ratio Decidendi

Section 245(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) imposes obligations from a development approval, including conditions, that run with the land and bind successors in title, such that if those conditions (e.g. providing an easement) are not met, a successor in title commits a development offence if given a reasonable opportunity to comply, empowering the Court to make enforcement orders against them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders 2 to 5 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland on 23 December 2016 set aside; in their place, order that the appeal be dismissed and the matter remitted to the primary judge for the making of final orders.
  • First respondents to pay the appellants' costs of this proceeding and the proceedings in the courts below.