CURLEWIS and CITY OF ALBANY

The case of Curlewis and City of Albany involved a dispute over the approval of a conditional development permit by the City of Albany, which was subject to a third-party review application. The applicants, Curlewis, sought to challenge the decision of the City of Albany to grant conditional development approval to another party. The applicants for review were not provided with notice of the decision or the right to seek review under section 20 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The review application was initiated six weeks after the notice was given to the applicant for approval. The court had to determine whether the applicants had the right to seek review, whether an extension of the period prescribed by rule 9 of the State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA) was required, and whether such an extension should be granted. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the landowner of the site in respect of which the development approval was granted should be allowed to intervene and the scope of such intervention.

The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the rules concerning the right to seek review and the timeframe within which such a review can be brought. The court had to determine whether the applicants' lack of notice of the decision and the right to seek review affected their standing to challenge the decision. The court also had to consider the circumstances in which an extension of the period for bringing a review application could be granted and whether the landowner should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. The scope of such intervention was also a matter for the court to address.

The court held that the applicants did not have the right to seek review as they were not provided with notice of the decision and the right to seek review under section 20 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). However, the court found that an extension of the period for bringing a review application could be granted in exceptional circumstances, and in this case, the extension was granted due to the applicants' lack of notice. The court also allowed the landowner to intervene in the proceedings, but the scope of such intervention was limited to matters directly affecting the landowner's interests.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants were not entitled to seek review of the decision to grant conditional development approval, but an extension of time was granted for the applicants to bring a review application. The landowner was allowed to intervene in the proceedings, but only to the extent that their interests were directly affected by the decision.