Woolworths Limited v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCA 179

Woolworths Limited v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCA 179

The primary judge erred on a question of law by misdirecting himself under cl 6.13(3)(a) of the RLEP: the relevant inquiry was whether the building was designed or constructed for the purpose of commercial premises, not whether its use as a registered club could be characterised as business premises or retail premises. The RLEP did not make registered club and commercial premises mutually exclusive, and retail premises did not require retail sale directly to the public. On the facts found, the building was designed or constructed for food and drink premises, being retail premises and therefore commercial premises. Clause 6.13(3)(a) did not preclude the grant of development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales on a Question of Law Concerning Separate Questions in Development Consent Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; separate question answers set aside and replaced; dismissal order set aside; proceedings remitted; respondent ordered to pay appellant's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plans' 'commercial Premises' 'retail Premises' 'registered Clubs' 'separate Questions' 'appeal on Question of Law']
['planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plans' 'commercial Premises' 'retail Premises' 'registered Clubs' 'separate Questions' 'appeal on Question of Law']

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 From the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales on a Question of Law Concerning Separate Questions in Development Consent Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether cl 6.13(3)(a) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 precluded development consent for Woolworths' proposed retail liquor outlet because the development did not relate to a building designed or constructed for the purpose of commercial premises." 'Whether the primary judge erred by focusing on the current or historical use of the building as a registered club rather than the purpose for which the building was designed or constructed.' 'Whether design or construction for the purpose of a registered club necessarily excluded design or construction for the purpose of commercial premises.' 'Whether the definition of retail premises required retail sales directly to the public.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge erred on a question of law by misdirecting himself under cl 6.13(3)(a) of the RLEP: the relevant inquiry was whether the building was designed or constructed for the purpose of commercial premises, not whether its use as a registered club could be characterised as business premises or retail premises. The RLEP did not make registered club and commercial premises mutually exclusive, and retail premises did not require retail sale directly to the public. On the facts found, the building was designed or constructed for food and drink premises, being retail premises and therefore commercial premises. Clause 6.13(3)(a) did not preclude the grant of development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; separate question answers set aside and replaced; dismissal order set aside; proceedings remitted; respondent ordered to pay appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The answers given by the Land and Environment Court on 7 July 2016 to the separate questions are set aside.' 'Instead, the answers to the separate questions are: (a) Does the development application seek consent for development which does not relate to a building that was designed or...