Dilatte v MacTiernan

In the matter of Dilatte v MacTiernan, the applicants sought to challenge the decision of the Minister of Planning to refuse their application for a development permit. The dispute arose in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants contended that the Minister's decision was unlawful due to procedural unfairness and inconsistency with a prior decision. The applicants argued that the Minister had considered submissions on behalf of objectors without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby denying them procedural fairness. Additionally, they submitted that the Minister's decision was inconsistent with a previous decision made by a different Minister on a similar matter, and that this inconsistency rendered the decision arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness and whether the alleged inconsistency with a previous decision rendered it arbitrary and unreasonable. The applicants needed to establish that the Minister had breached the principles of natural justice by failing to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the submissions on behalf of objectors. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Minister's decision was so inconsistent with the previous decision as to be unreasonable.

The court found that the Minister's decision was indeed flawed. It held that the Minister had failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness by considering the submissions of objectors without allowing the applicants to respond. The court also determined that the Minister's decision was inconsistent with the previous decision, which had been upheld by a higher court. This inconsistency, combined with the failure to provide procedural fairness, rendered the Minister's decision arbitrary and unreasonable. Consequently, the court issued an order nisi for certiorari, which was subsequently made absolute.