Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Planning Executive (Planning and Land Authority)
Case
•
[2013] ACTSC 50
•26 March 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Planning Executive (Planning and Land Authority) [2013] ACTSC 50
[2013] ACTSC 50
26 March 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc brought a judicial review application against the Chief Planning Executive, challenging a decision to grant development consent. The application was brought in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought leave to amend its originating application to challenge an additional decision by the Chief Planning Executive. The applicant also sought to join a second plaintiff and made an application for dismissal of the defendant’s application for security for costs.
The court was required to decide whether to grant the application for leave to amend the originating application, to allow the joinder of a second plaintiff, to dismiss the application for security for costs, and to determine the amount of security for costs to be provided.
The court held that the time for commencing proceedings in respect of the second decision was extended to 4 pm on 30 April 2013. The court granted leave to the plaintiff to file a further amended originating application in the form of the draft filed on 25 October 2012. The application to join Mr Ross as a plaintiff in the proceedings was dismissed. The court held that the true purpose of the joinder was to give the plaintiff standing in respect of its constitutional challenge. The court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the constitutional challenge. The application for dismissal was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff was to provide security for the defendant’s costs by paying into court the sum of $25,000.00 or otherwise providing security for that amount in a manner satisfactory to the defendant. Security was to be provided by 4 pm on 30 April 2013. The matter was to be listed before the court for further management of the proceedings on 1 May 2013 with a view to fixing a date for the hearing of the substantive issues. In the event that the security was not provided the court would, on 1 May 2013, consider any application made by the defendant for an order for the dismissal of the proceedings.
The court was required to decide whether to grant the application for leave to amend the originating application, to allow the joinder of a second plaintiff, to dismiss the application for security for costs, and to determine the amount of security for costs to be provided.
The court held that the time for commencing proceedings in respect of the second decision was extended to 4 pm on 30 April 2013. The court granted leave to the plaintiff to file a further amended originating application in the form of the draft filed on 25 October 2012. The application to join Mr Ross as a plaintiff in the proceedings was dismissed. The court held that the true purpose of the joinder was to give the plaintiff standing in respect of its constitutional challenge. The court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the constitutional challenge. The application for dismissal was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff was to provide security for the defendant’s costs by paying into court the sum of $25,000.00 or otherwise providing security for that amount in a manner satisfactory to the defendant. Security was to be provided by 4 pm on 30 April 2013. The matter was to be listed before the court for further management of the proceedings on 1 May 2013 with a view to fixing a date for the hearing of the substantive issues. In the event that the security was not provided the court would, on 1 May 2013, consider any application made by the defendant for an order for the dismissal of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Security for Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Executive (Planning and Land Authority) (No 2) [2017] ACTCA 1
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
6
Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA
[1991] HCA 45
Roberts v Gill & Co
[2010] UKSC 22