BLANCO and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2025] WASAT 95

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
CITATION:   BLANCO and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2025] WASAT 95
MEMBER:   MR E CADE, MEMBER
HEARD:   3 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   11 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CC 127 of 2025
BETWEEN:   CAMILO BLANCO
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

Local Government - Minor breach - Decision of Local Government Standards Panel - Application for extension of time to make application for review of a decision of the Tribunal - Principles which apply to exercise of discretion to grant extension of time - Application for extension of time refused

Legislation:

Electronic Transactions Act 2011 (WA), s 14(1)(a)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 75, s 76
Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 34D
Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (WA), reg 20
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.102A, s 5.110(6), s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.110(6)(b)(ii), s 5.110(6)(c), s 5.118(1), s 5.125, s 5.125(1), s 5.125(2), s 9.50
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 24, s 37(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9, r 9(a), r 10

Result:

Application for extension of time refused
Application for review dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr AJ Tharby
Respondent	:	Mr T Boyle
Intervener	:	Mr T Boyle

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Bennett
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Intervener	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458
Goedhart and Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASAT 49
Heidelberg Materials Australia Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2025] WASAT 66
Kingston and Local Government Standards Panel [2025] WASAT 43
Treby v Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81
Wood and Law Complaints Officer as Delegate of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2024] WASAT 35

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These reasons deal with the preliminary issue in the proceeding which the applicant's application to extend time, under r 10 of the State Administrative Tribunal Rules2004 (WA) (Rules), for him to lodge his application for a review of a decision by the Local Government Standards Panel (Panel).
The applicant, Camilo Blanco, was at the date of the hearing of the preliminary issue a councillor of the Town of Port Hedland (Town). The applicant was last elected to the Council of the Town at the 20 October 2023 election for a term expiring in October 2027. However, the applicant's position on the Town council was declared vacant effective 3 September 2025. Accordingly, the Tribunal will, without intending any disrespect, refer to the applicant as Mr Blanco in these reasons.
The proceeding is within the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The reviewable decision is the decision of Panel sent by email to Mr Blanco on 17 July 2024 under s 5.110(6)(b)(i), s 5.110(6)(b)(ii) and s 5.110(6)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) that Mr Blanco is to be publicly censured and,…

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 BLANCO and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL 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: [2025] WASAT 95
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Local Government Standards Panel faced an application from Blanco, seeking an extension of time to apply for a review of the panel's decision. Blanco was found to have breached the Local Government Act by failing to display a sign prohibiting dogs in a public area. The tribunal's decision was that Blanco had committed a minor breach, and the panel's decision was upheld. Blanco now sought an extension of time to challenge this decision. The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time should be granted and what principles should be applied in making such a decision.

The court considered the principles that apply to the exercise of discretion to grant an extension of time. It noted that such discretion is not to be exercised lightly and that there must be a good reason for the delay. The court also noted that the decision-maker must consider whether the applicant has acted with due diligence and whether there is a reasonable prospect of success in the application for review. The court found that Blanco had not demonstrated that there was a good reason for the delay, and that the application for an extension of time should be refused.

The court considered the evidence presented by Blanco and found that there was no good reason for the delay in making the application for review. The court found that Blanco had not acted with due diligence and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in the application for review. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused, and that the tribunal's decision should stand.

The court refused Blanco's application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the tribunal's decision. The court held that the tribunal's decision should stand and that Blanco had not demonstrated a good reason for the delay in making the application for review. The court found that Blanco had not acted with due diligence and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in the application for review.

Orders