CITATION: ARGYLE -v- STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [2022] WASC 317
CORAM: SMITH J
HEARD: 6 SEPTEMBER 2022
DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: CIV 1787 of 2022
BETWEEN: FIONA ELIZABETH MARIE ARGYLE
Applicant
AND
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Respondent
ANNABELLE CINDY PURSER
First Other Party
STEPHEN PURSER
Second Other Party
Catchwords:
Administrative law - Judicial review - Review jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal under pt 14 of div 1 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) - Leave granted by the Tribunal for applicant to file a submission outlining the concerns with the development the subject of the proceeding before the Tribunal pursuant to s 242 of the Planning and Development Act - Nature and function of review proceedings in planning matters - Procedure to be applied by the Tribunal inquisitorial and adversarial compared to administrative procedure applied by original decision-maker - Rights of a submission maker compared to the rights of parties including any intervenor to adduce evidence considered - Leave granted pursuant to s 242 to make a submission to the Tribunal does not extend to the provision of expert evidence annexed to a submission
[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.
Continue reading Argyle v State Administrative Tribunal
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Argyle v State Administrative Tribunal [2022] WASC 317
Case
[2022] WASC 317
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Argyle brought an appeal against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. The dispute concerns the validity of a decision made by the Tribunal regarding the planning and development of land. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant state. The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by making a decision outside the limits of its functions and powers. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Tribunal had made a decision based on a submission about the impact of the development on adjoining land, which was not within the scope of the powers conferred on the Tribunal.
The court examined whether the Tribunal had made a decision outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred on it by the relevant legislation. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's decision was invalid because it was based on a submission that was not within the scope of its powers under section 242 of the Planning and Development Act. The court considered whether the Tribunal had misconstrued its Act, acted on a mistaken assumption about jurisdictional facts, or disregarded relevant considerations as required by the Act.
In determining the appeal, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed made a decision outside the limits of its powers. The court concluded that the Tribunal had misconstrued the nature and scope of its functions under the Act by considering a submission on the impact of the development on adjoining land. This submission was not within the scope of the powers conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. The court further held that the Tribunal's decision was invalid due to this jurisdictional error. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Tribunal was quashed.
The final order of the court was that the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
To describe a decision as 'involving jurisdictional error' is to describe that decision as having been made outside jurisdiction.[5] That is, the decision‑maker makes a decision outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred on him or her, or does something which he or she lacks the power to do.[6][5] Hossain v Minister for Immigrationand Boarder Protection [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 92 ALJR 780 [24] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler & Keane JJ).[6] Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 141 (Keane J). In Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, the plurality observed that it is not possible to mark the metes and bounds of jurisdictional error.[7] Their Honours did, however, refer at [71] to the categories outlined by Professor Mark Aronson in his paper 'Jurisdictional Error without the Tears'. In summary, those categories are:[8](a)a mistaken assertion or denial of the very existence of jurisdiction;(b)a misapprehension or disregard of the nature or limits of the decision‑maker's functions or powers;(c)acting wholly or partly outside the general area of the decision‑maker's jurisdiction, by entertaining issues or making the types of decisions or orders that are forbidden under any circumstance (for example, a civil court trying a criminal charge);(d)acting on a mistaken assumption or opinion as to the existence of a jurisdictional fact or other requirement when the relevant Act makes the validity of the decision‑makers acts contingent on the actual or objective existence of those things, rather than on the decision‑maker's subjective opinion;(e)disregarding a relevant consideration which the Act required to be considered or paying regard to an irrelevant consideration which the Act required not to be considered, in circumstances where the Act's requirements constitute pre‑conditions to the validity of the decision‑maker's act or decision;(f)misconstruing the decision‑maker's Act in such a way as to misconceive the nature of the function being performed or the extent of the decision‑maker's powers;(g)acting in bad faith; and(h)breaching (the hearing or bias rules of) natural justice.[7] Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 [71] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel & Bell JJ).[8] Aronson M, 'Jurisdictional Error without the Tears' in Groves & Lee (eds) Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines (2007) 330, 335 ‑ 336. In ground 1, the applicant claims that the Tribunal erred in law by making the decision outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred on the Tribunal in circumstances where: (a)section 242 of the Planning and Development Act does not contain a limitation on the nature and content of a submission; (b)order 2 of the Order made on 1 June 2022 granted the applicant leave to file a submission outlining its concerns with the development; and(c)leave to make a submission did not exclude submissions on the impact of the development on adjoining land or the provision of an expert report or opinion to support that submission.