Acquista Investments Pty Ltd & Anor v The Urban Renewal Authority (A Statutory Corporation) & Ors

Acquista Investments Pty Ltd and Veolia Environmental Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of a decision by the Urban Renewal Authority (the Authority) to enter into a contract for the disposition of Crown land. The applicants contended that the Authority's decision was unlawful and amenable to judicial review, while the respondents argued that the contract was valid and that the decision was not subject to review.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the decision of the Authority to dispose of Crown land was amenable to judicial review. Relatedly, the Court was asked to consider whether the Authority's actions complied with the relevant statutory provisions, particularly section 11 of the Public Corporations Act, and whether the disposition of Crown land was conducted in accordance with the statutory regime governing such transactions. The applicants argued that the majority of the Full Court erred in finding that the decision was not amenable to judicial review, submitting that this conclusion departed from established principles regarding the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.

The applicants' counsel argued that the majority's reasoning, which suggested that the common law of judicial review prevented review of the decision, was flawed and that the case presented a "plainest possible occasion" for applying the rule in *Kirk's Case*, which affirms the constitutional duty of courts to review the lawfulness of executive conduct. They contended that the majority had committed a "category error" by applying outdated language of "directory" versus "mandatory" provisions and that the statute governing the disposition of Crown land was not being obeyed. The respondents, however, submitted that the core of the dispute involved a standard question of statutory interpretation, focusing on whether the statute rendered the contract invalid rather than whether the disposition itself was unlawful. They argued that the consequence of any alleged unlawfulness was dictated by the statute and that the decision was not amenable to judicial review because it involved policy considerations unsuitable for judicial resolution.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal. The Court indicated that the question of amenability to judicial review was a significant point of law of general public importance, warranting further consideration. The Court also noted that the issue of whether section 11 of the Public Corporations Act was directory or mandatory, and its implications for the validity of the contract and the amenability of the decision to review, was a seriously arguable point.