Nancy Shetland Pty Ltd v Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works
The appeal failed because, on the proper construction of s 17 (1D) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Vic, the protected continuance of the "use" of land did not include development, subdivision or sale. The appellant's proposed further subdivision and sale of the balance of the land therefore was not saved from the operation of the interim development order.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal in an Action for a Declaration Concerning Planning Controls / Appeal From Dismissal by Gowans J. in the Supreme Court of Victoria
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['interim Development Order' 'continuance of Existing Lawful Use' 'subdivision of Land' 'meaning of Use and Development']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for a Declaration Concerning Planning Controls / Appeal From Dismissal by Gowans J. in the Supreme Court of Victoria
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the intended subdivision and sale of the balance of the land was protected as a continuance of the use of land under s 17 (1D) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Vic.' 'Whether "use of any land" in s 17 (1D) extends to development, subdivision or sale of land.']
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal failed because, on the proper construction of s 17 (1D) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Vic, the protected continuance of the "use" of land did not include development, subdivision or sale. The appellant's proposed further subdivision and sale of the balance of the land therefore was not saved from the operation of the interim development order.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment