Galloway & Associates and City of Melville

Galloway & Associates sought a review of a decision by the City of Melville which required the company to seek further consent for the erection of a roof sign. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The core issue was whether the 2003 approval given for various signage also included the specific advertisement that the City of Melville argued required further consent. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the 2006 revocation of the approval was valid, and whether the 2003 approval was based on the existence of rights that would exempt the sign from requiring additional consent.

The court examined the 2003 approval and found that it had been granted on the basis that the proposed signage was in line with the local planning laws and existing rights. The court concluded that the local government had wrongly revoked the approval in 2006, as the revocation was not justified. Moreover, the court found that the 2003 approval was indeed based on existing rights, which exempted the sign from needing additional consent. Consequently, the City of Melville’s requirement for further consent was unnecessary.

The Supreme Court ruled that the application for review was successful. The decision under review was set aside, and in its place, the court determined that no additional planning approval was required for the subject sign. This decision was based on the existence of the 2003 approval, which had already covered the proposed advertising. The local government's attempt to impose additional conditions was deemed inappropriate as it had improperly mixed local law with the established rights.