Colonial Range Pty Ltd v Victorian Building Authority and Ors

In the case of Colonial Range Pty Ltd v Victorian Building Authority and Ors, the plaintiff, Colonial Range, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Victorian Building Authority (the Authority) under section 81(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic). The decision in question involved the Authority’s consent to the termination of a private building surveyor. The plaintiff argued that the Authority failed to afford natural justice to an adjoining owner when making this decision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the decision of the Authority was amenable to judicial review under the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Authority was required to afford natural justice to the adjoining owner when deciding to consent to the termination of the private building surveyor. The court also examined the role and functions of private and municipal building surveyors under the Building Act 1993 (Vic) and the nature of the decision made under section 81(1) of the Act, contrasting it with the decision of the owner to appoint a surveyor under section 78.

The Supreme Court found that the decision of the Authority was not amenable to judicial review under the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). The court held that the Authority was not required to afford natural justice to the adjoining owner in this context, as the decision was purely administrative in nature. Furthermore, the court noted that the scheme of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) distinguishes between the role of private and municipal building surveyors, and the decision in question fell within the administrative functions of the Authority. The court also made obiter dicta observations on the potential application of R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Datafin Plc [1986] EWCA Civ 8 to the decision of the owner to appoint a building surveyor under section 78 of the Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review, finding that the ground of review on natural justice was not made out. The court concluded that even if the ground of review had been established, it would not have exercised its discretion to grant relief.