Chang v Laidley Shire Council [2007] HCA 37

Chang v Laidley Shire Council [2007] HCA 37

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' development application, made after the commencement of the Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Qld) and after the relevant draft regulatory provisions prohibiting the proposed development came into effect, was not a 'properly made application' under the scheme in force at the time. As no valid application was lodged prior to the amendments, no accrued entitlement to compensation survived or was protected. The statutory requirements for a compensation claim—including a properly made application for development—must be satisfied according to the law as at the date of lodgment, absent any clear legislative intention...

Parties
Appellant: Shu-Ling Chang; Appellant: Tai-Hsing Chen; Respondent: Laidley Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Local Government, Subdivision of Land, Vested Rights and Statutory Compensation, Retrospectivity of Legislation, Interpretation of Planning Statutes
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Interpretation Compensation Law Local Government Subdivision of Land Vested Rights and Statutory Compensation Retrospectivity of Legislation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shu-Ling Chang

Appellant

Tai-Hsing Chen

Appellant

Laidley Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were entitled to compensation for loss of value in land following changes to planning scheme under Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld) and subsequent amendments
  2. 2 Whether a 'properly made application' for development was prevented by the introduction of new regulatory provisions via the Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Qld)
  3. 3 Whether accrued or vested rights to compensation or development survived subsequent legislative amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' development application, made after the commencement of the Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Qld) and after the relevant draft regulatory provisions prohibiting the proposed development came into effect, was not a 'properly made application' under the scheme in force at the time. As no valid application was lodged prior to the amendments, no accrued entitlement to compensation survived or was protected. The statutory requirements for a compensation claim—including a properly made application for development—must be satisfied according to the law as at the date of lodgment, absent any clear legislative intention...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs