Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission

The Corporation of the City of Enfield (Enfield) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of a provisional development plan consent granted by the Development Assessment Commission (the Commission) to Collex. Enfield contended that the Commission had exceeded its powers by granting consent without Enfield's approval, which was required because the development was classified as "non-complying" under the relevant legislation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the classification of a development as "non-complying" was a jurisdictional fact, the erroneous determination of which would render the Commission's consent invalid. This involved considering whether the court, on judicial review, was restricted to the material before the Commission when assessing this jurisdictional fact, or if it could consider additional evidence. The High Court also had to determine the proper approach to reviewing the Commission's assessment of whether the development constituted "special industry," a criterion for determining if it was "non-complying."

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the classification of the development as "non-complying" was indeed a jurisdictional fact. The Court reasoned that the statutory prohibition against granting consent to a "non-complying" development, unless specific conditions were met (such as ministerial and council concurrence), meant that the determination of whether the development was "non-complying" was a prerequisite for the Commission's power to grant consent. The Court held that the Supreme Court was not restricted to the material before the Commission when determining this jurisdictional fact and that the primary judge had correctly found, based on the evidence presented, that the proposed development was "special industry" and therefore "non-complying." Consequently, the Commission had acted in excess of its powers by granting consent without the necessary approvals.

The High Court set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and remitted the matter back to that Court for the determination of the remaining grounds of appeal. The High Court ordered that Collex pay Enfield's costs in the High Court, and that the costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court would abide the outcome of the appeal to the Full Court.