Planning appeal in doubt after tribunal refuses to swap a company for the objector who could appeal (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

Hobart City Council granted a planning permit on 25 June 2026 for use and development at 65 Brisbane Street, Hobart, under permit PLN-HOB-2025-0658. The permit was for a multiple dwelling proposal by Brisbane Street Apartments Pty Ltd. During the council's public notification of the application, a representation (a written objection or comment made while an application is advertised) dated 26 May 2026 was lodged. It was expressed to be by the owners of 34 Patrick Street, Hobart, a residential apartment building next to the development site, and set out the harm the owners expected from the proposal. It was signed by an individual described only as "associated with 34 Patrick Street, Hobart". That association was not explained, and the representation did not mention Platinum Plus Properties Pty Ltd anywhere. After the council made its decision, it sent the notice of approval to that individual as a representor.

The appeal against the grant of the permit was then lodged in the name of Platinum Plus Properties Pty Ltd. The Tasmanian Heritage Council was later joined to the appeal. At a preliminary conference on 10 August 2026 the tribunal's case officer pointed out that Platinum Plus was not on the list of representors supplied by the council, and that making a representation is a precondition for appealing against the grant of a permit. The case officer directed Platinum Plus either to file submissions identifying the link between the company and a relevant representation, or to apply to vary the name of the appellant.

An application was then filed by the individual who had signed the representation, asking that the appellant's name be changed from the company to himself. He was not a party to the proceedings, and the company did not expressly consent to or join in the application. The tribunal had no explanation of the relationship between the individual and the company. Because he had signed the notice of appeal on the company's behalf and had attended the preliminary conference as one of three representatives of the company, the tribunal treated the application as being made jointly by him and the company, in keeping with the objective of acting with as little formality and technicality as possible.

The council, the developer and the Heritage Council all took a neutral position on the application.

What each side wanted

The application argued that the appeal should be "regularised" so that the named appellant matched the person the documents showed had made the representation: the representation was signed by the individual and the council had served its notice of decision on him as a representor. It said the change would not alter the permit under challenge, the development, the grounds of appeal or the relief available, and would not prejudice anyone, because the individual had been involved throughout and had attended the preliminary conference. It relied on the tribunal's procedural powers, pointing to section 83(4) of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (practice and procedure is as the tribunal determines where not otherwise prescribed), section 84 (directions and whatever is necessary for the expeditious and fair conduct of proceedings) and section 112 (interlocutory orders). The council, the developer and the Heritage Council neither supported nor opposed it.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal refused the application. Its orders were: "1. The application to substitute Samuel Haberle as the appellant is refused. 2. Within 14 days the appellant is to file and serve submissions as to the appellant's standing to bring the appeal or is to otherwise show cause why the appeal ought not be dismissed. 3. The first and second respondents and the joined party are to file and serve any submissions in reply within 14 days of receiving the appellant's submissions."

No money was claimed or ordered. The refusal left open the question of whether the appeal itself is valid if the company did not make a representation, which is what the second and third orders are designed to sort out.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal started from the point that a company is a separate legal person from its officers and shareholders and can sue and be sued in its own right, under section 124 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). So changing the appellant from the company to the individual was not a tidy-up of a name. It was swapping one legal person for another.

The tribunal found no provision in the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 or the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021 that expressly allows a party to be substituted. It worked through the general powers instead: section 10(1)(g) (be flexible and adjust procedures to fit the case), section 79(c) (act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to legal technicalities and forms) and section 84(1) (give directions and do whatever is necessary for the expeditious and fair conduct of proceedings). Following its own earlier decisions, the tribunal held that those powers do let it correct an error in the way an appellant is described, even where that means putting the correct separate entity on the record, but that on their face they do not stretch to substituting a brand new party.

This case was not an error in description. The individual had signed the notice of appeal on the company's behalf, so he must have known the appeal was being brought by the company and not by him. There was no submission that he was always meant to be the appellant and the company was named by mistake. The tribunal listed what it had not been told: why he did not file his own appeal, what his relationship with the company was, why the company was named, what interest either of them had in the permit beyond his undefined association with 34 Patrick Street, and what connection the company had with the owners of that building. It said the company may have been named to limit liability, or in error, or because neither realised that the right to appeal the grant of a permit depends on having made a representation under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, but all of that was speculation.

On that material the tribunal was not persuaded it had the power to simply substitute a party, and said that even if the power existed it would not have exercised the discretion, given the unexplained relationships. Without expressing any view on how it would turn out, it observed that the more appropriate course for the individual appeared to be to file his own appeal and apply for an extension of time.

What this means if you are in a similar position

Appeal rights against a council's planning decision are set by statute, and the statute says who may use them. Under the Tasmanian planning legislation applied here, the right to appeal against the grant of a permit belongs to a person who made a representation while the application was on public notification. This decision shows that the tribunal treats the identity of that person strictly: the name on the objection, and the name on the appeal, need to be the same legal person. A company you control is not you, and you are not it.

If you are in a similar position, the practical point the decision illustrates is that it can matter a great deal whether a problem with a name is an error in description or a change of party. The tribunal here accepted it can fix a typing or description mistake, even to the point of naming the correct entity, but it drew the line at substituting someone new, especially where nobody explained how the two were connected or why the wrong name was used in the first place. The decision also shows that a tribunal will say what it has not been told, and that unexplained gaps count against the person asking for the order.

In disputes about a development near you, the step most people take first is the written one: a representation or objection lodged with the council while the application is advertised, in the name of the person or people who own or occupy the affected property, followed by an application or appeal to the tribunal within the time limit if the decision goes against them.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a TASCAT application. More decisions: TASCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: Platinum Plus Properties Pty Ltd v Hobart City Council [2026] TASCAT 125 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.