Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell - [2012] ACTSC 102

ARGOS PTY LTD & ORS v SIMON CORBELL, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ORS
[2012] ACTSC 102 (6 July 2012)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeals from Administrative Authorities – challenge to the Minister’s decision to approve a development application – found that the plaintiffs are not persons aggrieved – found that the Minister did have jurisdiction to approve the development application – found that the development proposal was authorised under the relevant legislation – found that the Minister took into account all relevant considerations – found that the exercise of power by the Minister was a reasonable one – found that no rules of natural justice were breached by the Minister in his making of the decision – found that no error of law was made by the Minister in his making of the decision

Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493
Australian Conservation Foundation and anor v Minister for Resources and anor (1989) 19 ALD 70
Australian Foreman Stevedors Association v Crone (1989) 20 FCR 377
Boyce v Paddington Borough Council [1903] 1 Ch 109
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission and anor (2000) 199 CLR 135
Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Limited and ors v Planning and Land Authority and anor (2007) 157 LGERA 259
Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675
Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd and ors v Minister for the Environment Land and Planning and ors (1995) 122 FLR 269
Manuka Business Association Inc v The Australian Capital Territory Executive [1998] ACTSC 86
North Coast Environment Council Incorporated v Minister for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27
Randall Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council (2005) 144 LGERA 119
Re Tooheys Limited v the Honourable John Clinton Moore, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia (1981) 54 FLR 421
Woolworths Ltd v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd and anor (2004) 61 NSWLR 707

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 5
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) ss 3B, 5, 6
Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (Cth), ss 6, 9, 10, 11, 25, 26
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 (ACT) (repealed), ss 7, 8, 237
Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) ss 28, 29, 30, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 119, 120, 121, 139, 152, 153, 155, 160, 162

No. SC 665 of 2011

Judge: Burns J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 6 July 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 665 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:  ARGOS PTY LTD
ACN 008 524 418
First Plaintiff
CAVO PTY LTD ATF DEMOS FAMILY TRUST T/AS IGA KALEEN SUPERMARKET
ACN 096 897 862
Second Plaintiff
KOUMVARI PTY LTD ATF       VIZADIS FAMILY TRUST   T/AS IGA EVATT SUPERMARKET
  ACN 081 122 492
Third Plaintiff
COMBINED…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] ACTSC 102
Decision Date: 6 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Argos Pty Ltd and Corbell are the parties in dispute in this case before the Court. The plaintiffs, Argos Pty Ltd, are challenging the Minister’s decision to approve Corbell's development application, which they argue was made without jurisdiction, in breach of the relevant legislation, and without proper consideration of relevant factors. The Court was required to decide whether the Minister had the jurisdiction to approve the development application, whether the development proposal was authorised under the relevant legislation, whether the Minister took into account all relevant considerations, whether the exercise of power by the Minister was reasonable, whether any rules of natural justice were breached, and whether any error of law was made by the Minister.

The Court found that Argos Pty Ltd were not persons aggrieved by the Minister's decision, and therefore did not have standing to challenge the decision. The Court also found that the Minister did have jurisdiction to approve the development application, and that the development proposal was authorised under the relevant legislation. The Court found that the Minister had taken into account all relevant considerations and that the exercise of power by the Minister was reasonable. The Court further found that no rules of natural justice were breached by the Minister in his making of the decision and that no error of law was made by the Minister in his making of the decision. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.