Adbooth Pty Ltd v City of Perth

In the case of Adbooth Pty Ltd v City of Perth, the appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) that the City of Perth was entitled to refuse an application by the appellant to display general commercial advertising on public telephone booths and pedestals. The appellant argued that the display of general commercial advertising on the telephone booths and pedestals, which were owned by Telstra, required approval under the City Planning Scheme No 2 (the Scheme) and the Planning and Development Act (the PD Act), and that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the Commonwealth law did not prevent the application of the Scheme and the PD Act to the appellant's proposal. The Tribunal upheld the City's refusal to grant approval on the basis that the appellant's proposal was subject to the Scheme and the PD Act. The appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was refused.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Commonwealth law, which permitted the display of advertising related to the supply of standard telephone services on public telephone booths and pedestals, precluded the application of the Scheme and the PD Act to the appellant's proposal for the display of general commercial advertising. The Court noted that the parties agreed that the Commonwealth law did not entirely displace the Scheme and the PD Act but rather rendered any inconsistent provision in those laws, or in the Scheme, invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. The Court further noted that there was no submission that the Commonwealth law covered the field and precluded any State planning control over the display of general commercial advertising on the telephone booths and pedestals. The Court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant laws and that there was no apparent error in its decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal's decision involved an error of law or any other ground for granting leave to appeal. The Court also noted that the appellant had not identified any error in the Tribunal's characterisation of the facts or in its application of the relevant laws. The Court held that the appellant had not made out a case for leave to appeal and that the application should be dismissed. The Court made no orders as to costs.