City of Botany Bay Council v The Minister of State for Transport & Regional Development

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - decision of a minister to direct increase in use of east-west runway at Sydney Airport - decision of a minister to exempt from requirements of Administrative Procedures made under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) - whether exemption unlawful and void - whether primary judge misconstrued meaning of expression "the public interest" - whether Ministers' decisions unreasonable - whether failure to take into account relevant considerations - whether breach of requirements of natural justice.

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth)

CITY OF BOTANY BAY COUNCIL & ORS v THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ORS
No NG475 of 1996

Black CJ, von Doussa & Sundberg JJ
11 September 1996
Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                 ) No NG475 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

On appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:              CITY OF BOTANY BAY COUNCIL
  ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL
  RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL
  HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL

Appellants

AND:MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

First Respondent

MINISTER OF STATE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT

Second Respondent

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

Coram:           Black CJ, von Doussa & Sundberg JJ
Date:              11 September 1996
Place:              Sydney

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                 ) No NG475 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

On appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:               CITY OF BOTANY BAY COUNCIL
  ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL
  RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL
  HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL

Appellants

AND:MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

First Respondent

MINISTER OF STATE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT

Second Respondent

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

Coram:           Black CJ, von Doussa & Sundberg JJ
Date:              11 September 1996
Place:              Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This is an appeal from a decision of Lehane J dismissing an application for judicial review of two decisions. One is a decision of the second respondent to exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedures established under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth),
certain proposed Commonwealth actions relating to the use of runways at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport ("the airport") and relating to the flight paths of aircraft taking off from, or landing at, the Airport.

The other decision is a decision by the first respondent to direct the third respondent, Airservices Australia, substantially to increase the use of runway 07/25, (known as the east-west runway) by aircraft taking off from, or landing at, the Airport.

In this notice of appeal, the appellants raised a number of grounds but the submissions before the Court were confined to four grounds which, in essence, were:

(a)that the learned primary Judge misconstrued the expression "the public interest" in para.11.3.1(a)(4) of the Administrative Procedures made under s.6(1) of the Environment Protection Impact of Proposals Act;

(b)that the Judge should have found that the exercise of its power by the second respondent was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise it;

(c)that the Judge should have found that there had been a failure by the second respondent to take into account relevant considerations that he was bound to take into account; and

(d) that the Judge should have found that there was a breach of the requirements
of natural justice in that each Minister was, it was submitted, under an

obligation to give the appellants notice of what was proposed and an opportunity to be heard in opposition.

The learned primary Judge gave detailed reasons for decision, which we have carefully considered. It is apparent from his Honour's reasons that in relation to the four matters argued before us on appeal, essentially the same arguments that were put in detail to his Honour were put before us today. His Honour dealt with those arguments in his reasons. We are in full agreement with what his Honour has said about them and we see no reason to add to what he has written. In these circumstances we would dismiss the appeal with costs.

The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages
are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Court.

Associate:

Date: 11 September 1996

Counsel for the appellants: W.R. Davison SC
D.R. Parry

Solicitors for the appellants: Houston Dearn O'Connor

Counsel for the respondents: A. Robertson SC
S.J. Gageler

Solicitor for the 1st & 2nd respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

Solicitors for the 3rd respondents: Freehill Hollingdale & Page

Date of hearing: 11 September 1996

Date of judgment: 11 September 1996

This case involves an appeal against the decision of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia who dismissed an application for judicial review brought by several local councils. The applicants sought to challenge two decisions made by the respondents, namely the Minister of State for Transport and Regional Development, the Minister of State for the Environment, and Airservices Australia. The primary dispute revolves around decisions related to the use of runways at Sydney Airport, specifically the increased use of the east-west runway, and the exemption of certain proposed Commonwealth actions from the requirements of the Administrative Procedures established under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had misconstrued the meaning of the expression "the public interest" in the context of the Administrative Procedures, whether the exercise of power by the second respondent was unreasonable, whether there had been a failure to take into account relevant considerations, and whether there was a breach of natural justice principles due to the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard provided to the appellants. The applicants argued that the decisions were unlawful and void, and that the respondents' actions were unreasonable, failed to consider relevant factors, and breached natural justice requirements.

The Federal Court of Australia, comprised of Black CJ, von Doussa, and Sundberg JJ, dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judge's decision. The court found that the applicants' arguments were essentially the same as those presented to the primary judge, and that the primary judge had adequately addressed and rejected them in his reasons. The court was in full agreement with the primary judge's analysis and found no reason to add to his findings. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed with costs, in accordance with the settlement and entry of orders as outlined in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal principles and the need for proper consideration of relevant factors and natural justice requirements in administrative decision-making processes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established