Evda Nominees Pty Ltd v Victoria

Evda Nominees Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued by the Victorian Minister for Conservation (the respondent) under section 10(1) of the *Land Conservation Act 1970* (Vic) declaring certain land to be a protected public park. The applicant, the registered proprietor of the land, contended that the Minister's notice was invalid due to a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act, specifically the requirement to consult with the applicant.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister's notice was a valid exercise of the power conferred by section 10(1) of the *Land Conservation Act 1970* (Vic). Central to this determination was the question of whether the statutory requirement for consultation with the landowner, as implied by the terms of the Act, had been satisfied. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to undertake any meaningful consultation before issuing the notice, rendering it ultra vires and invalid.

The Court held that the notice was invalid. Gibbs C.J. and Mason J. found that the statutory scheme contemplated a process of consultation with the landowner before a declaration could be made. They reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to facilitate the conservation of land, and this purpose was best served by ensuring that landowners were afforded an opportunity to be heard. The absence of any evidence of such consultation led them to conclude that the Minister had not complied with the essential requirements of the legislation. Brennan J. agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the statutory power was not unfettered and was subject to the implied procedural fairness owed to the landowner. Deane and Dawson JJ. also found the notice to be invalid, though their reasoning differed slightly, focusing on the interpretation of the statutory language. Murphy J. dissented, finding that the consultation requirement was not mandatory.

The High Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, quashing the notice issued by the Minister.