• Save
Early Thoughts on Salter
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Early Thoughts on Salter

on

  • 1,477 views

Michael Teys presents his initial thoughts on today's Supreme Court of Victoria decision, Salter v Building Appeals Board & Ors [2013]

Michael Teys presents his initial thoughts on today's Supreme Court of Victoria decision, Salter v Building Appeals Board & Ors [2013]

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,477
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,320
Embed Views
157

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 157

http://www.lookupstrata.com.au 152
https://twitter.com 5

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Early Thoughts on Salter Early Thoughts on Salter Document Transcript

    • TEYS Lawyers Pty Ltd Michael TeysStrata Law Specialists CEO & Principal SolicitorABN 11 127 707 671 E: michael@teyslawyers.com.auSuite 73 Lower Deck, Jones Bay Wharf T: 02 9562 650026 – 32 Pirrama Road, Pyrmont NSW 2009 F: 02 9562 6555GPO Box 4157, Sydney NSW 2001Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards LegislationSOME EARLY THOUGHTS ON THE WATERGATE APPEAL (SALTER V BUILDINGAPPEALS BOARD & ORS [2013] VSC 279)30 May 20131. This was a judicial review of the decision of the Building Appeals Board (VIC) of 22March 2013 that held Class 2 residential buildings could not be used for short-term usein the style of a serviced apartment or hotel.2. The Supreme Court of Victoria today delivered a judgment quashing the decision of theBuilding Appeals Board, and has sent the matter back to the Board to be re-determined.The Board is to be differently constituted.3. The Supreme Court judgment was critical of the approach taken by the Board indetermining the meaning of a ‘dwelling’, and by importing notions of duration of a stay ininterpretingthat word.4. The judge also found that the Board was wrong when it concluded that there had been a‘change in use’.5. The Board will now have to decide the matter again. It does not necessarily follow thatthe Board must now determine the matter in favour of the serviced apartment operator. Itmay decide on different grounds and according to new evidence that the servicedapartment operation is unlawful.6. It remains open for other serviced apartment operations to be shut down by noticesgiven under different sections of the Building Act and Regulations.7. The City of Melbourne is considering an appeal of today’s decision.8. The owners corporation which we represented in the hearing before the Board was not aparty to this appeal.Michael TeysCEO & Principal SolicitorTEYS Lawyers