Administrator of Norfolk Island v Jope

The Supreme Court of Norfolk Island heard an appeal by the Administrator of Norfolk Island against a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The dispute arose from the Administrator's refusal to approve a subdivision proposal by Mr Terence Jope, who had obtained in-principle approval for the subdivision in July 2001. The Administrator contended that the in-principle approval had lapsed because Mr Jope had not made substantial progress in implementing the consent within the 12-month period required by the statutory regime. The court was required to determine whether the Administrator's decision was lawful and whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its review powers.

The court held that the Administrator's decision was not supported by the statutory regime in force at the time the in-principle approval was granted. The repealed Subdivision Act 1996 and Planning Act 1996 provided that in-principle planning approval could lapse if "substantial progress" had not been made in implementing the consent within 12 months. However, the court found that the requirement for "substantial progress" was not part of the statutory regime at the time the approval was granted. The court further held that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its review powers by setting aside the Administrator's decision and directing him to approve the subdivision proposal. The court also held that the Tribunal's decision was not flawed by any error of law or failure to consider relevant matters.

The court allowed the appeal in part, remitted the proceeding to the Administrative Review Tribunal for it to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and ordered the parties to file written submissions relating to costs on or before 11 October 2006. The court held that the Administrator's decision was not supported by the statutory regime in force at the time the in-principle approval was granted, and that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its review powers. The court further held that the Tribunal's decision was not flawed by any error of law or failure to consider relevant matters.