Campbell v ACT Planning and Land Authority

Case [2024] ACTSC 10

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Campbell v ACT Planning and Land Authority

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 10

Hearing Date: 

12 April 2023

Decision Date: 

1 February 2024

Before:

McWilliam J

Decision: 

(1)    Leave is granted to extend the time in which to commence proceedings to 19 April 2022.

(2)    The application is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Procedural fairness – apprehended bias – failure to consider relevant consideration – error of law – planning approval of development application – where neighbour made representation – where decision-maker received information from proponent criticising neighbour and undertook independent research without giving neighbour an opportunity to respond – no error established

Legislation Cited: 

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) ss 4A, 5, 13

Court Procedures Rules 2006, rr 3557, 3559

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 151C, 179

Planning Act 2023 (ACT) s 613

Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) ss 5, 10, 28, 35, 50, 54, 55, 112, 113, 120, 122, 141, 144 156, 162, 170, 261, sch 1,

Planning and Development Regulation 2008 sch 3

Residential Zones Development Code r 33

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 34B

Cases Cited: 

Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCA 165; 103 NSWLR 479

Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1

Bay Simmer Investments Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 135

Blackshaw v Campbell [2019] ACAT 41

Canberra Services Club Ltd v Minister for Planning and Land Management [2022] ACTSC 5

Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107; 252 FCR 352

CD v Central Gippsland Health Service [2022] VSC 462

CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50; 268 CLR 76

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287

Concerned Citizens of Canberra v Chief Planning Executive (Planning and Land Authority) [2014] ACTSC 165; 286 FLR 355

Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; 229 CLR 577

CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1; 255 CLR 514

Cressy v Miloriad (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 339; 317 FLR 267

Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v State of South Australia [2023] HCA 22; 97 ALJR 575

Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564

East Australian Pipeline Pty Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] HCA 44; 233 CLR 229
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337

Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1

Forman and York v ACT Planning and Land Authority and Evans and Evans [2013] ACTSC 167; 279 FLR 54

FSG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 29; 274 FCR 456

Hannay v Brisbane City Council [1999] 2 Qd R 54 at 57.

Hossainv Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; 264 CLR 123

Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v…

Continue reading Campbell v ACT Planning and Land Authority

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Campbell v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2024] ACTSC 10
Case
[2024] ACTSC 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Campbell, sought judicial review of a decision made by the ACT Planning and Land Authority to approve a development application. The dispute centred on the authority's process and decision, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and the consideration of relevant matters. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the decision-maker had been biased and had failed to consider relevant information, which led to an improper approval of the development application.

The court needed to determine whether the decision-maker had acted with procedural fairness and whether any errors in law or consideration had occurred. Specifically, the court had to examine if the decision-maker's actions demonstrated bias, whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the information presented, and if all relevant considerations were duly taken into account. The court also had to assess whether the decision-maker's independent research and the information received from the proponent were handled appropriately.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the decision-maker's actions did not establish any error of law or procedural unfairness. The court concluded that the decision-maker had not exhibited bias, as the actions taken were within the bounds of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant had not been deprived of a fair opportunity to respond to the information presented, and all relevant considerations had been appropriately addressed. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and found no merit in the applicant's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave is granted to extend the time in which to commence proceedings to 19 April 2022.

(2) The application is dismissed.

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.