The right company, the wrong mailbox: lessons from a recent case

Section 52 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) requires a person applying for a planning permit over land they do not own, to declare that they have notified the landowner of their intention to lodge the application.

The recent decision in Strand Group Pty Ltd v Waratah-Wynyard Council [2026] TASSC 55 (Strand Group v Waratah Wynyard Council) sheds light on what this requirement means in practice. In particular, this case clarifies what is required to properly notify a landowner that is a company.

Background on Strand Group v Waratah Wynyard Council

The case of Strand Group v Waratah Wynyard Council involves a planning permit application lodged on behalf of Paynters Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the redevelopment of an existing nursing home at 1A Moore Street, Wynyard (the Application).

The redevelopment of the nursing home would rely on the right of way located on the adjoining property at 19 Moore Court, Wynyard (the Adjoining Property). Accordingly, the Adjoining Property was included in the Application.

The Adjoining Property was owned by Strand Group Pty Ltd (Strand Group), not the Applicant. As required by s. 52 of LUPAA, the Applicant lodged a declaration stating that it had notified Strand Group of its intention to make the Application.

Before lodging the Application, the Applicant sent a notice to Strand Group to an address obtained from the Land Information System Tasmania (LIST). However, Strand Group never received the notice.

The key issue before the Court was whether the Applicant had complied with s. 52 of LUPAA by sending the notice to the LIST address, even though that address was not Strand Group’s registered office or principal place of business.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Court held that the requirement in s. 52 of LUPAA that a landowner be ‘notified’ means that notice must actually be given to the landowner before the application is lodged.

In determining how notice should be given to a company, the Court looked to the service provisions in s. 84 of LUPAA. Consistent with those provisions, it found that notice to a company should be sent to its registered office or principal place of business.

A significant factor in the Court’s reasoning was that companies are required under the Corporations Act 2001 to keep these details up to date. As a result, those addresses can generally be relied upon for the purpose of giving notice.

Although the Applicant had sent notice to the address recorded on LIST, that address was not Strand Group’s registered office or principal place of business. The Court therefore concluded that the Applicant had not satisfied the requirements of s. 52 of LUPAA.

Key takeaways

The decision is a timely reminder that, when a landowner is a company, sending notice to just any address associated with that company is not enough. When sending a notice to a company, the notice must be sent to the company’s registered office or principal place of business.

This decision is likely to have broader implications for statutory notification requirements under LUPAA. In particular, its application and may also extend to a planning authority’s obligations to:

• give notice of a discretionary planning application to the owners and occupiers of all land adjoining the subject site; and
• give notice of a decision to approve a minor amendment to a permit.