Kismet Engineering Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [1959] HCA 49

Kismet Engineering Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [1959] HCA 49

The building was already on the same area of land used for the protected engineering business before Chap. 35 came into force, and moving it bodily from one part of that land to another did not place a new building on the land or amount to erecting a building within ord. 2. The use of the land and building remained within the protection of ord. 5, so there was no contravention of Chap. 35.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Which Had Allowed an Appeal From Mack J. and Ordered Removal of the Building
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['use of Land and Buildings' 'non Residential Use' 'existing Use Rights' 'meaning of Erecting a Building Under Municipal Ordinances']
['local Government' 'planning and Land Use'] ['use of Land and Buildings' 'non Residential Use' 'existing Use Rights' 'meaning of Erecting a Building Under Municipal Ordinances']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Which Had Allowed an Appeal From Mack J. and Ordered Removal of the Building

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether moving an existing building on rollers from one part of the same land used for an engineering business to another part of that land amounted to erecting a building contrary to Chap. 35, ord. 2 of the Ordinances of the City of Brisbane.' 'Whether the continued use of the land and building for the engineering business was protected by Chap. 35, ord. 5.']

Ratio Decidendi

The building was already on the same area of land used for the protected engineering business before Chap. 35 came into force, and moving it bodily from one part of that land to another did not place a new building on the land or amount to erecting a building within ord. 2. The use of the land and building remained within the protection of ord. 5, so there was no contravention of Chap. 35.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland discharged.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal from the judgment of Mack J. to the Full Court be dismissed with costs.']