REAL PROPERTY – STRATA AND RELATED TITLES – MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL – BYLAWS – GENERALLY – where the applicant and first respondent own adjoining lots in Sanctuary Cove – where the second respondent is the principal body corporate of Sanctuary Cove – where the second respondent promulgated development control by-laws – where the first respondents’ application of proposed works was assessed by the Architectural Review Committee established under the by-laws and ultimately approved by the second respondent – where the by-laws established different types of building controls depending on the designation of a lot under the plan – where the plan identifies the applicant’s lot as a Development Parcel but the applicant contends it is a Controlled Aspect Lot – where the applicant alleges that the development approval given by the second respondent is unlawful and of no effect because the proposed work does not comply with the by-laws – whether the by-laws should be construed to classify the first respondents’ lot as a Controlled Aspect Lot, a Conventional 2 Aspect Lot, or a Development Parcel – whether the development approval granted was unlawful – whether the applicant’s refusal or failure to agree to amenity measures is a condition precedent to the first respondents being able to undertake work pursuant to the development approval
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES – OTHER CASES – where the applicant and first respondents’ lots are governed by the second respondent’s development control bylaws – where the applicant seeks mandatory injunctive relief that would require the demolition and removal of the works performed on the western wall of first respondents’ house – where the applicant commenced proceedings approximately 6 months after becoming aware of the proposed works – whether any delay in commencing proceedings should weigh against the exercise of discretion to grant injunctive relief – whether significant wasted costs that would be incurred by the first respondents would be disproportionate to the benefit to the applicant of granting the injunction – whether the hardship to the first respondents would be disproportionate to the benefit to the applicant if an injunction was granted – whether the applicant seeks to obtain the benefit of any injunction to compel compliance with the by-laws while refusing to take any steps to address his residence’s non-compliance – whether a mandatory injunction should be granted Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1995 (Qld) s 95 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7(3) BGM Projects Pty Ltd v Durmaz Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 87, applied Miller v Evans [2010] WASC 127, applied Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, applied The Owners of Strata Plan No 3397 v Tate (2007) 70 NSWLR 344; [2007] NSWCA 207, cited The Proprietors – Rosebank GTP 3033 v Locke [2016] QCA 192, considered Zappala Family Co Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2014) 201 LGERA 82, cited

LESLIE v ALEXANDER – [2022] QSC 131 – (7 July 2022)