The case of Emerald Pharmacy Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Aphrodite Barbayannis & Ors [2026] QPEC 21 concerned an application to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) seeking interim enforcement orders in respect of the use of a demountable building for a pharmacy (demountable). The demountable is situated at 51-57 Hospital Road, Emerald adjacent to The Village Shopping Mall.

Emerald Pharmacy Services and DCO Central Highlands Pty Ltd (Applicants) alleged that the use of the demountable is unlawful and constitutes a development offence. This is on the basis that it contravenes the development conditions of a development permit for a material change of use for shopping centre (extension) and building works for a shopping centre (extension) on land mapped within the Flood Overlay, which was granted by Council on 25 August 2025 (at [4]).

The Court considered the use to be unlawful and that it posed an unacceptable safety risk. The interim enforcement orders were granted requiring cessation of the use and removal of the associated power supply.

In deciding whether to grant the interim enforcement orders, the Court considered whether the following was demonstrated by the Applicants (at [18]):

"(a) There is a serious question to be tried; and

(b) The balance of convenience favours the grant of the interim enforcement order."

The First and Second Respondents conceded that there was a serious question to be tried, acknowledging that the pharmacy is subject to the conditions outlined in the development permit authorising the use (at [28]).

The development conditions require, among other things, that the development is to be connected to a reticulated electricity supply and that any electrical boxes or meters are mounted above the defined flood event level (Conditions 16 and 28). The Court considered the development permit and associated photos and was satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried (at [30]).

The matters raised by the First Respondent to inform the balance of convenience were considered by the Court. These included termination of the pharmacist, a loss of revenue and rental costs and a loss of stock (at [35]). The Court considered these matter to weigh against the grant of the interim enforcement orders, although they were ultimately not persuasive (at [36]).

The Applicants relied on three considerations to support their request for interim enforcement orders. Firstly, there is an expectation that there will be compliance with the requirements of a development approval. Secondly, the Respondents should be held to the same standards as other pharmacies that operate in the locality (see [42] to [43]). Finally, the noncompliances with the relevant development conditions are not trivial or technical, rather they carry a significant risk to public safety (at [44]).

Power to the demountable was supplied by a diesel generator which was connected by a single phase power cable, cable-tied to an elevated tray that traverses the car park within PVC conduit (at [48]). The expert for the Applicants raised a number of risks which include the risk of direct contact or collision with the wiring causing it to become live, the location of the electrical supply being within a high flood risk zone and noncompliance with the Australian Standard Wiring Rules (AS/NZS:3000).

The Court was satisfied that the reliance on the diesel generator poses an unacceptable risk to safety which, when coupled with the existence of a serious question to be tried, supports the grant of interim enforcement orders (at [73]).

The Court granted the interim enforcement order requiring the Respondents to cease use of the demountable building for a pharmacy and remove the diesel generator as well as all associated equipment and barriers (at [83]).