Skip to content

  • Home
  • COVID-19 Guide
  • Podcast library
  • Client results
  • Expertise
  • News & Insights
  • People
  • Our DNA
  • Inclusion and Diversity
  • Join us
  • Contact Us
Home / NEWS & INSIGHTS / Insight / Bunnings found to be a shop not a shopping centre
Insight 23 July 2020

Bunnings found to be a shop not a shopping centre

On 19 May 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in BWP Management Limited & Anor v Ipswich City Council [2020] QCA 104. The case, which had already been through the Land Court and the Land Court of Appeal, was simple in its premise – for the purpose of the levying of Council differential rates, should two Bunnings stores in the Ipswich area be properly categorised by Ipswich City Council (Council) as ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’, or ‘Shop – Single’ as the Applicant contended. Unsurprisingly, the Applicant’s position would result in lower Council rates for the Bunnings stores.

In Council’s budget, ‘Shop’ was not defined, but ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’ was defined to mean:

‘a premises or a cluster of premises that:
(a) is used wholly or predominately for carrying out a retail business; and
(b) is contained within one or more buildings or structures on one or more levels; and
(c) provides off-street parking for customer vehicles.’

The Court of Appeal (comprised of Morrison, McMurdo JJA and Boddice J) concluded that the Bunnings stores were ‘within the text of the definition’ of ‘Drive-in Shopping Centre’[1] but that the stores were also within the description of ‘Shop – Single’. Neither the Applicant nor Council quibbled with that finding (which was the same conclusion the Land Court reached).

The Court was faced with the question of how to properly categorise the stores when they met the definition of two distinct rating categories.

As a starting point, the Court resoundingly rejected the idea that the meaning of the words of a statutory definition can be construed by reference to the term which is defined, for reasons that would involve circularity.[2]  Simply put – in interpreting the meaning of ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’, any ambiguity cannot be resolved by looking at the definition of ‘shopping centre’. 

The Court also rejected the significance that the President of the Land Court placed in the Macquarie Dictionary definition of ‘Shop’ being ‘a building where goods are sold retail’ because the land use codes used to categorise land for rating purposes speak to the use of the land, not the structures upon the land.

The Land Appeal Court reasoned that the use of the land was better categorised as a ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’ because it was the more specific of the two definitions. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

What appeared to sway the Court of Appeal was the submission from the Applicant that in ordinary speech, a single shop, with car parking for its customers on the same land, would not be considered a shopping centre.[3] If nothing else, the Court of Appeal reasoned:

‘a shopping centre involves a premises from which more than one business is conducted.  In ordinary speech, the distinction between a shopping centre and a single shop is clear.’[4]

In interpreting the meaning of the definitions, the Court of Appeal held it was legitimate, indeed necessary, to consider the terms of the instrument as a whole, including the category ‘label’ of ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’. This was not, the Court of Appeal opined, circular reasoning, but instead the interpretation of the instrument as a whole.

Consequently, the Bunnings store was held to be properly categorised as ‘Shop – Single’ as advanced by the Applicant, rather than as a ‘Drive-In Shopping Centre’ as contended by Council.

Key takeaway

This case serves as a useful reminder that when preparing differential rates categories, local governments should make sure they are clear in the wording of their categories and try to avoid overlap wherever possible.

Many thanks to Patrick O’Brien, Lawyer, for his assistance in putting together this article.


[1] BWP Management Limited & Anor v Ipswich City Council [2020] QCA 104, [52].

[2] BWP Management Limited & Anor v Ipswich City Council [2020] QCA 104, [51].

[3] BWP Management Limited & Anor v Ipswich City Council [2020] QCA 104, [57].

[4] BWP Management Limited & Anor v Ipswich City Council [2020] QCA 104, [57]. 


This publication covers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not designed to express opinions on specific cases. It is intended for information purposes only and should not be regarded as legal advice. Further advice should be obtained before taking action on any issue dealt with in this publication.

About the authors

  • Troy Webb

    Partner

In other news

Native Title compensation – Lawson v Minister for Environment & Water (SA) (“Lake Victoria case”)

13 April 2021Insight

Department releases new Planning Agreements Practice Note

13 April 2021Insight

Council held liable for negligent misstatement in planning certificate

13 April 2021Insight

Picking the right delivery model for your next infrastructure project

13 April 2021Insight

VIEW ALL NEWS & INSIGHTS

BRISBANE

Level 11, 66 Eagle Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO Box 1855
Brisbane QLD 4001
Tel +61 7 3233 8888
Fax +61 7 3229 9949

 

GET IN TOUCH

    Contact form

    We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

    Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

    sydney

    Level 32, MLC Centre
    19 Martin Place
    Sydney NSW 2000
    GPO Box 462
    Sydney NSW 2001

    Tel +61 2 8241 5600
    Fax +61 2 8241 5699

     

    GET IN TOUCH

      Contact form


      We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

      Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

      melbourne

      Level 27, 101 Collins Street
      Melbourne VIC 3000
      GPO Box 2924
      Melbourne VIC 3001

      Tel +61 3 9067 3100
      Fax +61 3 9067 3199

       

      GET IN TOUCH

        Contact form

        We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

        Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

        follow us

        CLIENT LOGIN

        newcastle

        Level 2, 16 Telford Street
        Newcastle NSW 2300
        PO Box 394
        Newcastle NSW 2300

        Tel +61 2 4914 6900
        Fax +61 2 4914 6999

         

        GET IN TOUCH

          Contact form


          We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

          Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

          canberra

          Level 9, 2 Phillip Law Street
          Canberra ACT 2601

          Tel +61 2 6243 3699
          Fax +61 2 8241 5699

           

          GET IN TOUCH

            Contact form


            We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

            Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

            © 2017 McCullough Robertson. Site map Disclaimer Privacy Policy Statement of Business Ethics Credit Reporting Policy

            X