Blue Derby Wild Inc v Forest Practices Authority (No 2)

Blue Derby Wild Inc (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against decisions of the Forest Practices Authority (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's approval of a forest practices plan, which the appellant contended was unlawful. The appeal was heard by a bench of three judges, but one judge became unavailable before judgment was delivered.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the remaining two judges could lawfully reconstitute the bench to deliver judgment, and if so, whether this course of action was in the interests of justice, particularly given the potential for prejudice arising from further delay. The Court also considered whether the appellant had standing to bring the proceedings, given that the relevant legislative scheme did not explicitly provide for standing and the appellant's interest in environmental preservation was not considered sufficient to meet the "special interest" test or qualify it as a "person aggrieved." Furthermore, the Court had to assess the validity of the exercise of delegated power by the respondent, specifically in relation to allegations of apprehended bias, and whether the legislative scheme excluded requirements for the exercise of such power to be free from apprehended bias.

The Court held that the reconstitution of the bench by the remaining two judges was lawful and appropriate in the interests of justice, as the delay occasioned by awaiting the original bench's full composition would be prejudicial. Applying the "special interest" test, the Court found that the appellant's interest in environmental preservation was insufficient to confer standing, and it was not a "person aggrieved" under the relevant legislation. The Court also determined that the legislative scheme excluded the usual requirements concerning apprehended bias in the exercise of the delegated power.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.