Eckersley Development Pty Ltd v State Commission Assessment Panel

The parties to this matter were Eckersley Development Pty Ltd and Mr Hribar (the appellants) and the State Commission Assessment Panel (the respondent). The dispute concerned the categorisation of a proposed 34-storey student accommodation building on land in Adelaide. The appellants sought to appeal a decision of the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) which held that Principle 40 of the Development Plan was valid and refused their application for review. The appellants had mistakenly lodged their notice of appeal one day outside the prescribed 21-day limit and therefore applied for an extension of time.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the ERD Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of Principle 40 of the Development Plan, and whether an extension of time should be granted for the appellants to lodge their notice of appeal. The Assessment Panel contended that the ERD Court lacked jurisdiction because the application involved a direct challenge to the validity of the Development Plan, which it argued was solely within the purview of the Supreme Court.

The Court reasoned that the challenge to the validity of Principle 40 was a collateral challenge, not a direct one. It held that the primary question before the ERD Court was the categorisation of the proposed development under section 38 of the Act, and the validity of Principle 40 arose as an incidental or collateral issue in determining that question. Therefore, the ERD Court had jurisdiction to consider the validity of Principle 40. The Court also found that Principle 40 was not on its face ultra vires section 38 of the Act.

The Court ordered that an extension of time by one day for the appellants to lodge their notice of appeal be granted. However, the appeal itself was dismissed.