• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Mendelson sought an exemption from that contribution. As the Tribunal recorded it, clause 52.01 treated a subdivision as exempt, consistently with section 18(8) of the Subdivision Act 1988, if it subdivided land into two lots and the council considered it unlikely that each lot would be further subdivided.

The Council's position was that the lots were large enough to make further subdivision possible. It also referred to development pressures in high-amenity areas in and around Daylesford and Hepburn Springs. On that basis, it could not form the view that further subdivision was unlikely. Mendelson disagreed. He relied on the building envelope required by a permit condition, arguing that it made further subdivision unlikely.

The hearing was a practice day hearing on 6 March 2009, before Deputy President Helen Gibson. The order, dated 11 March 2009, dismissed the application. The significant boundary of the decision is that the Tribunal did not resolve the factual disagreement about further subdivision. It instead decided that the section 87 application was misconceived because there had been no material mistake of the kind relied on.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal focused on the procedural basis for the application, not on whether the subdivision met the exemption test. Mendelson had applied under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, on the basis that a material mistake had been made in relation to the grant of the permit. The Tribunal referred specifically to section 87(1)(c) in footnote 1 and found that there had been no material mistake of that nature.

The reasons then connect that finding to the permit condition. The Tribunal stated that, under clause 52.01, payment of a 5% public open space contribution was mandatory in respect of any subdivision. It said that if Mendelson wished to challenge the inclusion of condition 3 because he considered himself eligible for an exemption, he should have sought review of the condition when the Council decided to grant the permit. The reasons identify section 80 as the review provision and state in footnote 2 that the application had to be lodged within 60 days. In the Tribunal's words, that time had “well and truly passed”.

The Tribunal was explicit that it was not deciding whether the Council's view or Mendelson's view about likely further subdivision was correct. The phrase “I am not in a position to make any comment about the merits of these competing arguments” marks the limit of the determination. Consequently, the outcome does not establish that the subdivision was, or was not, exempt. It establishes that the exemption argument was not determined through the particular section 87 application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal identified another procedural path for testing the issue. It said that Mendelson could apply under section 72 to amend the permit. If the Council refused that application, the Tribunal said, an application for review could then be made under section 77. The Tribunal did not decide how such an application would be resolved, or what evidence would establish that further subdivision was unlikely. Its decision was to dismiss the current application as having no basis.

Before and after state of the law

This judgment is a short procedural decision. The supplied reasons do not set out the full text of sections 72, 77, 80 or 87, or the full text of clause 52.01. The account here is therefore limited to what Deputy President Gibson stated about those provisions and the permit condition.

Before the decision, the permit contained a 5% public open space contribution condition. Mendelson's section 87 application sought to amend the permit on an asserted material-mistake basis, connected to his claim that the subdivision was exempt. The Council disputed the factual premise for the claimed exemption, saying that further subdivision remained possible.

After the decision, condition 3 was not removed by the section 87 application. The Tribunal also did not determine the exemption question. Its procedural observations distinguished between two routes: a review of the condition under section 80, which it said had to be lodged within 60 days and was now out of time, and a section 72 application to amend the permit, followed, if refused by the Council, by a possible section 77 review.

The judgment should not be read as a general determination that all subdivisions attract a 5% contribution regardless of any exemption. The reasons refer to the exemption and describe its stated test, but they do not apply that test to decide the status of these lots. Nor do they decide whether a building envelope would make further subdivision unlikely. Their legal significance in this dispute is the distinction between the application made under section 87 and the alternative procedures the Tribunal identified.

No other decisions or later authorities are included in the material supplied. It is therefore not possible, on this source alone, to say how later courts or tribunals have treated this decision, or whether its procedural reasoning has been followed, distinguished or developed.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The reasons state that the application was “under section 87” and that Mendelson relied on “a material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit”. In plain English, he was asking the Tribunal to use a particular statutory power to amend the permit because, he said, the permit had been granted on a mistaken basis. The Tribunal addressed whether that asserted basis existed; it did not treat the section 87 proceeding as a general opportunity to reconsider the contribution condition.

The Tribunal said: “I find that there has been no material mistake of this nature.” This is the key finding. It explains why the specific application failed. It does not mean the Tribunal found that Mendelson's interpretation of the exemption was factually wrong. The following sentence makes the distinction clear: the Tribunal said it could not comment on the merits of the competing arguments about further subdivision.

The reasons state that the 5% contribution was “mandatory in respect of any subdivision” under clause 52.01. Read with the surrounding discussion, this is the Tribunal's explanation of why the condition was included and why the applicant needed to challenge it through a procedurally appropriate route. The judgment also describes the claimed exemption. It does not explain the full scope or operation of clause 52.01 beyond the point relevant to this dispute.

On the missed review period, the Tribunal said the time to apply for review of condition 3 “has well and truly passed”. The footnote specifies that a section 80 review had to be lodged within 60 days. In practical terms within the reasoning of this case, the Tribunal considered that the original review route was no longer available because the stated filing period had expired.

Finally, the Tribunal said that an application to amend the permit under section 72 could be used to test whether the subdivision was exempt, with a possible section 77 review if the Council refused. This is procedural guidance recorded in the reasons. It is not a prediction that a later application would succeed, and the Tribunal made no finding about what the Council or Tribunal would decide on the merits.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most relevant to a narrow procedural fact pattern: a permit has been granted with a public open space contribution condition; the permit-holder later argues that an exemption should have applied; and the permit-holder seeks to remove or alter the condition using a section 87 application based on an alleged material mistake.

The relevant features here were that the permit covered a two-lot subdivision, the condition required a 5% contribution before the statement of compliance, and the applicant's exemption argument turned on whether it was unlikely that each lot would be further subdivided. The Council and applicant disagreed about that likelihood, with the Council relying on lot size and local development pressures and the applicant relying on the building envelope.

The decision may assist in identifying a procedural issue where a party is trying to revisit a permit condition after the stated time for review has expired. It shows that, in this case, the Tribunal did not treat section 87 as a substitute for the missed section 80 review, absent the material mistake invoked by the applicant. It also shows the distinction the Tribunal drew between challenging the original condition and making a later section 72 permit-amendment application.

The precedent does not resolve a case merely because it concerns a two-lot subdivision or a 5% contribution. If the dispute turns on whether the exemption applies, this judgment does not decide that merits question. Relevant differences could include the wording of the applicable planning scheme, the permit conditions, the site's characteristics, the applicable statutory provisions, and the procedural history. The supplied judgment does not decide how any such differences affect the outcome.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied material contains no later judgments, tribunal decisions or commentary discussing Mendelson v Hepburn SC. It therefore does not provide a basis to identify any later authority that applied, followed, distinguished, criticised or developed its reasoning.

The judgment itself cites statutory provisions: sections 72, 77, 80 and 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and section 18(8) of the Subdivision Act 1988. It does not cite another case. Its reasoning is confined to the application before Deputy President Gibson and the procedural routes she identified.

For research purposes, the absence of later treatment in the supplied material is a limit on the analysis, not evidence that no later treatment exists. Any account of the decision's subsequent reception would require a separate, current search of relevant Victorian decisions and other reliable legal sources.

Still-open questions

The central merits question remained open: was it unlikely that each lot would be further subdivided? The Council said no, relying on lot size and development pressures in the area. Mendelson said the building envelope made further subdivision unlikely. The Tribunal expressly declined to decide between them.

The judgment also does not explain what evidence would be sufficient to establish that further subdivision was unlikely. It does not assess the design, legal effect or practical constraints of the building envelope, nor does it make findings about the lots' size, planning controls or development potential. Those matters were not decided in the section 87 proceeding.

A further open question is how a later section 72 amendment application would have been assessed, including how the Council would apply the exemption test and what review issues could arise under section 77 following a refusal. The Tribunal identified those procedural steps but made no ruling on their application to the facts or their likely outcome.

Finally, the judgment does not supply the full text of the statutory provisions or planning-scheme clause. Its description of them is enough to understand the basis for the procedural decision, but not to resolve broader questions about their interpretation or operation in other circumstances. The judgment's clearest lesson from the supplied reasons is therefore a limited one: the Tribunal dismissed this section 87 application for want of the asserted material mistake, while leaving the exemption dispute itself undecided.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.