FRANCO and CITY OF NEDLANDS

Franco initiated proceedings against the City of Nedlands in relation to development applications. The dispute centred on the respondent's decision to refuse development approval for the applications, which Franco sought to have reviewed. Following a review process under section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the respondent reconsidered the applications and substituted decisions granting conditional development approval. Franco then applied for an interim injunction under section 90 of the same Act to prevent the respondent from revoking these substituted decisions and from making any further decisions regarding the applications.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. First, whether it was unlawful for the respondent, as the original decision-maker, to revoke a substituted decision made upon reconsideration and to substitute a new decision for the reviewable decision. Second, whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interim injunction. The court had to determine if Franco had established a prima facie case or a serious question to be tried on these issues.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the legality of the respondent's actions in revoking the substituted decisions and making new decisions. It was determined that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interim injunction, as the potential harm to Franco if the respondent were allowed to proceed outweighed any harm that might be caused to the respondent by the injunction. Consequently, the court granted the interim injunction as sought by Franco.

The court's final orders included the granting of an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from revoking the substituted decisions and from making any further decisions in relation to the development applications. This injunction remained in place pending the final determination of the review proceedings.