Babic v Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services (Administrative Review)

In Babic v Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services (Administrative Review), the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) was tasked with reviewing three separate directions issued by the Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services under the Public Unleased Land Act 2013. The directions required Ms Babic to remove plants, objects, and to repair public unleased land adjacent to her property. The nature of the dispute centred around the validity and necessity of these directions and the procedural compliance with the ACAT Act. The tribunal needed to determine whether the Director-General's decisions to issue the directions were lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The legal issues before the tribunal involved the interpretation and application of the Public Unleased Land Act 2013, particularly sections 21, 34, and 98. The tribunal examined whether the Director-General had a reasonably held belief that the plants endangered safety, whether the objects placed on public unleased land constituted unauthorised use, and if the repairs were necessary due to damage caused by unauthorised works. Additionally, the tribunal assessed whether the statutory requirement to provide written notice of the decision was strictly adhered to, and if any failure in this regard affected the decision's validity.

The tribunal confirmed the Director-General’s decisions, finding that the directions were legally sound and procedurally compliant. In relation to the plant removal direction, the tribunal accepted the Director-General’s reasonably held belief that the plants endangered safety, aligning with the precedent set in the George case. For the objects removal direction, the tribunal considered the definition of 'use' and found that placing objects on public unleased land constituted unauthorised use, consistent with the Pappas case. Regarding the repair direction, the tribunal determined that the earthmoving works had caused damage to the public land, impairing its value and function, as seen in the Alcock case. The tribunal also found that the failure to provide written notice did not invalidate the directions, in line with the ACAT Act. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the directions and outlined specific timelines and references for compliance.

The tribunal's final orders required Ms Babic to remove the specified plants, objects, and to repair the public unleased land by 11 September 2023. The orders also specified the use of particular survey and image references to delineate the boundary and guide the repair work. This decision underscores the tribunal's commitment to ensuring public unleased land is maintained and used in accordance with statutory requirements, while also recognising the procedural flexibility in administrative law.