Grafton v Conservator of Flora & Fauna (Administrative Review)

In Grafton v Conservator of Flora & Fauna (Administrative Review), Professor Grafton sought a review of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna's decision not to approve the removal of a tree. The dispute centred around whether the Conservator had correctly applied the criteria in the Tree Protection Act 2005 when deciding not to grant Professor Grafton's application. The matter was heard by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), with Professor Grafton representing himself, and the Conservator represented by Ms Sonja Gasser and Ms Georgia Junakovic of the ACT Government Solicitor. Key witnesses included Professor Grafton, Dr Coyne, an arborist and member of the Tree Advisory Panel, and Professor Kompas, an expert in probability and risk assessment, called by the applicant.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether Professor Grafton had established that any of the Approval Criteria were met, and if the Conservator had correctly exercised its discretion in declining the application. The tribunal had to determine whether Professor Grafton's evidence and arguments were sufficient to meet the criteria for tree removal under the Act, and whether the Conservator's decision was rational and supported by the evidence.

The tribunal ultimately upheld the Conservator's decision, finding that Professor Grafton had not demonstrated that any of the Approval Criteria were satisfied. The tribunal's decision was informed by the Tree Protection Panel's report, which endorsed the risk assessment conducted by Dr Coyne. The tribunal held that the Conservator had correctly exercised its discretion in declining the application, as Professor Grafton had not provided sufficient evidence or argument to meet the criteria for removal. The tribunal concluded that Professor Grafton had not discharged the onus of proof required under the Act.

ORDERS:
The tribunal confirmed the Conservator's decision, upholding the decision not to approve the removal of the tree. The Conservator's decision was taken to be the decision of the original decision maker.