Chang v Laidley Shire Council [2007] HCA 37

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

SHU-LING CHANG & ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

LAIDLEY SHIRE COUNCIL RESPONDENT

Chang v Laidley Shire Council

[2007] HCA 37

29 August 2007

B46/2006

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

D R Gore QC with T N Trotter for the appellants (instructed by Robert Milne Legal)

M D Hinson SC for the respondent (instructed by Connor O'Meara)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Shu-Ling Chang v Laidley Shire Council

Local government – Subdivision of land – Section 5.4.2 of the Integrated Planning Act 1977 (Q) ("the Act") afforded a statutory entitlement to compensation to those affected by a change in planning scheme – Appellants applied to respondent Council for approval for reconfiguration of land – Planning provisions did not permit proposed reconfiguration – Earlier provisions would have permitted reconfiguration – Whether appellants entitled to compensation on account of diminution in value of land brought about by inability to reconfigure – Whether appellants had "accrued right" or "accrued entitlement" to compensation.

Statutes – Interpretation – Meaning and effect of s 3.2.1 of the Act – Section 3.2.1 prescribed the method for applying for development approval – Proposed development was refused on the basis that it was contrary to the draft regulatory provisions – Whether development application that was contrary to the draft regulatory provisions was a "properly made application" – Whether s 3.2.1 should be read down in conformity with the rule that statutes are not to be construed as interfering with vested interests unless that purpose is manifest – Whether a clear indication of the legislative purpose to abolish the right to compensation was required and was manifest.