Ibrahim v Greater Bendigo CC [2025] VSC 6
E115 reported a case where ‘or’ took an ‘ambulatory and cumulative’ operation14. This case involved an application to extend time for starting work under a planning permit. The statute allowed review of (a) a decision to refuse an extension of time ‘or’ (b) a failure to extend time within a month of a request15.
It was argued that, a decision to refuse having been made, there could be no review of a failure to extend because ‘or’ confers a ‘binary choice’. Quigley J held that ‘or’ did ‘not operate as a … mutually exclusive choice’. It merely delineated the opportunities for review. Much may ride on what ‘or’ means. Context and purpose are always crucial to resolving the point.
This principle is from Episode 117 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
14 Williams [2024] HCA 38 [155], cf McIntosh [2021] NSWCA 221 [13-15].
15 s 81(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).