Masterton Homes Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2003] NSWLEC 44

A 'company title' arrangement relevantly falls within the statutory definition of 'subdivision,' and the restriction required by condition D8 is lawfully achievable under s 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919. Therefore, condition D8 is not ultra vires.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 February 2003
Procedural Posture: Class 1 Proceeding (appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, S 97) / Determination of Preliminary Question of Law
Outcome: Condition D8 of the development consent is not ultra vires.
Legal Topics: ['validity of Condition of Development Consent' 'subdivision of Land' 'restrictions on Use of Land' 'company Title Arrangements' 'interpretation of Planning Instruments']

['planning and Environment Law' 'property Law'] ['validity of Condition of Development Consent' 'subdivision of Land' 'restrictions on Use of Land' 'company Title Arrangements' 'interpretation of Planning Instruments']

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

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Proceeding (appeal Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, S 97) / Determination of Preliminary Question of Law

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether condition D8 of development consent is ultra vires, specifically: (i) whether a 'company title' arrangement constitutes subdivision under the relevant planning law; (ii) whether a restriction on use covenant as required by condition D8 may properly be imposed under s 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919"]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Condition D8 of the development consent is not ultra vires.

Orders

["The applicant's question of law is determined by holding that condition D8 of the development consent is not ultra vires."]