Legal Research
Cases
Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission

Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission

Case [2007] TASSC 92 16 November 2007

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 92

CITATION:Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission
[2007] TASSC 92

PARTIES: GRUNSETH, Jon Reider

SALTEL INC
APOLLO BAY GROUP LLC
v
RESOURCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL
THE HON STEVEN KONS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF TASMANIA

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  M7/2007
DELIVERED ON:  16 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 July, 31 August 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Reviewable decisions and conduct – Decisions to which judicial review applies – Decisions under an enactment – Generally – Decision not authorised or made without jurisdiction.

Ozmanian v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Anor (1996) 137 ALR 103; Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307; Little v The Commonwealth (1947) 75 CLR 94; Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598, referred to.
Griffith University v Tang (2004) 221 CLR 99, distinguished.
Judicial Review Act2000 (Tas), s4(1)
Aust Dig Administrative Law [1009]

Environment and Planning – Environmental planning – Planning schemes and instruments – Tasmania – Amendment to planning schemes – Notice and advertising – Sufficiency of advertisement.

Project Blue Sky Inc & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; Scurr & Ors v Brisbane City Council & Anor (1973) 133 CLR 242; Litevale Pty Ltd v Lismore City Council (1997) 97 LGERA 91, referred to.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas), s38
Land Use Planning and Approvals Regulations 2004 (Tas), reg6
Aust Dig Environment and Planning [51]

Administrative Law – Judicial review – Power of Courts under judicial review legislation – Generally – Discretion as to relief.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Ord (1990) 170 CLR 321; Montreal Street Railway Company v Normandin [1971] AC 170; Woods v Bate (1987) 7 NSWLR 560; Emanuele v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 71 ALJR; Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1980) 145 CLR 485; Curac v Shoalhaven City Council & Ors (1993) 81 LGERA 124, referred to.

Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas), ss27(1) and 38(1)(a)(ii)

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1080]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicants:  M E O'Farrell
             First Respondent:  Notice              of submission filed
             Second Respondent:  D R Armstrong
             Attorney-General:  P Turner
Solicitors:
             Applicants:  Dobson Mitchell & Allport
             First Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Second Respondent:  D R Armstrong
             Attorney-General:   Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 92
Number of paragraphs: 31

Serial No 92/2007
File No M7/2007

JON REIDER GRUNSETH, SALTEL INC and APOLLO BAY GROUP LLC
v RESOURCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION,
KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL and THE HON STEVEN KONS,
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

16 November 2007

The applicants, Jon Grunseth, Saltel Inc ("Saltel") and Apollo Bay Group LLC ("Apollo Bay"), have applied pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 2000 for an order quashing a decision made by the Resource Planning and Development Commission ("the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission

Details

AGLC: Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission [2007] TASSC 92
Case: [2007] TASSC 92
Decision Date: 16 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grunseth v Resource Planning and Development Commission involved the appellant, a property owner, challenging the decisions made by the respondent Commission regarding the rezoning of his property. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the scope of judicial review in relation to decisions made under statutory authority. The appellant argued that the Commission's decision to rezone his property was unauthorised and beyond its jurisdiction, thereby warranting judicial intervention.

The legal issues before the Court were centred on whether the decisions made by the Commission were subject to judicial review and, if so, under what circumstances such review could be granted. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Commission's actions were authorised by the relevant statute and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to make the decisions in question. The appellant contended that the Commission's decisions were not authorised by the statute and that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by rezoning the property.

The Court's reasoning revolved around the principles of statutory interpretation and the scope of judicial review. The Court determined that the Commission's decisions were indeed subject to judicial review, but only if they were found to be unauthorised by the statute or made without jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the statutory provisions must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the legislative intent. In this case, the Court held that the Commission's decisions were authorised by the statute and were within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Commission's actions.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the decisions of the Commission were upheld. The Court found that the Commission had acted within its statutory authority and jurisdiction, and therefore, the appellant's claims for judicial review were unfounded. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative framework when making administrative decisions and the limited scope of judicial review in such contexts.

Orders