Dawson and Anor and City Of Fremantle

The applicants, Dawson and another, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Fremantle to refuse an extension of a building licence. The applicants argued that the council’s refusal to extend the licence was a reviewable decision and that the statutory provision requiring demolition did not apply. The respondents contended that the council’s decision was a valid exercise of discretion and that the applicants had not demonstrated good faith in their dealings with the council. The primary issue for the court was whether the council's refusal to extend the building licence was a reviewable decision under the relevant legislation. The court had to determine whether the statutory provision requiring demolition was applicable and the extent of the council’s discretion in considering demolition. The court also had to assess the applicants' good faith and the public interest in preventing tardy building construction.

The court found that the council's refusal to extend the building licence was a reviewable decision. The statutory provision requiring demolition was not applicable as the applicants had demonstrated good faith in their dealings with the council. The court held that the council's discretion in considering demolition was limited and that the public interest in preventing tardy building construction had to be balanced against the interests of the applicants. The court found that the applicants had acted in good faith and that the delays were partly attributable to errors of judgment or misunderstandings. The court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the review was allowed.

The court set aside the council's decision and substituted a decision that planning approval be given in the terms sought by the applicants. The court held that the council's failure to consider the applicants' good faith and the public interest in preventing tardy building construction was a material error of law. The court also held that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence and that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The court ordered that the decision under review be set aside and that planning approval be given in the terms sought by the applicants.