Legal Research
Cases
Haughton v Minister for Planning

Haughton v Minister for Planning

Link copied

Case Copied 2 December 2011 79 min read

Contents

On this page

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Haughton v Minister for Planning and Macquarie Generation; Haughton v Minister for Planning and TRUenergy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 217
Hearing dates: 15 - 17 September 2010
Decision date: 02 December 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Craig J
Decision:
1. The applicant's summons is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.
3. Exhibits may be returned.

Catchwords:
JUDICIAL REVIEW: whether applicant has standing to bring proceedings - s 75T of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - review sought for jurisdictional error - section not read down to exclude standing under s 123 of the EPA Act when review sought on that ground - ouster clause not operative

JUDICIAL REVIEW: whether critical infrastructure declaration in relation to two Major Projects validly made under s 75C of the EPA Act - projects for the purpose of energy supply - statutory interpretation of relevant and interrelated sections of the legislation - category of development the subject of declaration - declaration validly made
JUDICIAL REVIEW: concept plan approvals under Part 3A of the EPA Act - matters for consideration - whether Ecologically Sustainable Development is a mandatory relevant consideration - greenhouse gas emissions - climate change - whether Minister failed to consider ESD principles - extended review of materials for concept plan approval - balancing of impacts - the public interest - need to secure electricity generation - no error in weighing competing considerations - decision was not manifestly unreasonable - summons dismissed
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Evidence Act 1995
Industrial Relations Act 1996
Interpretation Act 1987
Liquor Act 1982 (now repealed).
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005
Supreme Court Act 1970
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Aldous v Greater Taree City Council [2009] NSWLEC 17; (2009) 167 LGERA 13
Attorney-General for the Northern Territory v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1989) 23 FCR 536
Attorney General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21; (1990) 170 CLR 1
Attorney General v World Best Holdings Limited [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557
Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth [1980] HCA 53; (1980) 146 CLR 493
Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 49; (1998) 194 CLR 247
Buck v Bavone [1976] HCA 24; (1976) 135 CLR 110
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135
Coles Myer Limited v O'Brien (1992) 28 NSWLR 525
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135
Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Croome v State of Tasmania [1997] HCA 5; (1997) 191 CLR 119
Drake-Brockman v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 490; (2007) 158 LGERA 349
Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335
Harrison v…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haughton v Minister for Planning and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWLEC 217
Decision Date: 02 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The summons was brought by the applicant, Haughton, against the Minister for Planning in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought to challenge a decision made by the Minister regarding a planning approval. The dispute revolves around the approval granted for a proposed development, which the applicant argues was unlawful and contrary to the planning scheme. The applicant contends that the Minister failed to properly consider the relevant planning policies and the impact of the development on the surrounding environment.

The central legal issues for the court to address were whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether there were any procedural irregularities or errors in the decision-making process. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Minister had acted within their statutory powers, correctly applied the planning scheme and policies, and adequately considered the environmental impact of the proposed development. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was flawed due to alleged procedural errors and a failure to properly consider relevant environmental factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister had exercised their powers correctly and followed the appropriate procedures. The court held that the Minister had given proper consideration to the planning policies and the environmental impact of the proposed development. The decision was found to be in accordance with the planning scheme and did not suffer from any significant procedural errors. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's summons and reserved costs for another determination. The exhibits were to be returned to the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant's summons is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

3. Exhibits may be returned.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Haughton v Minister for Planning and Macquarie Generation; Haughton v Minister for Planning and TRUenergy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 217
Hearing dates:	15 - 17 September 2010
Decision date:	02 December 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	1. The applicant's summons is dismissed. 2. Costs are reserved. 3. Exhibits may be returned.
Catchwords:	JUDICIAL REVIEW: whether applicant has standing to bring proceedings - s 75T of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - review sought for jurisdictional error - section not read down to exclude standing under s 123 of the EPA Act when review sought on that ground - ouster clause not operative JUDICIAL REVIEW: whether critical infrastructure declaration in relation to two Major Projects validly made under s 75C of the EPA Act - projects for the purpose of energy supply - statutory interpretation of relevant and interrelated sections of the legislation - category of development the subject of declaration - declaration validly made JUDICIAL REVIEW: concept plan approvals under Part 3A of the EPA Act - matters for consideration - whether Ecologically Sustainable Development is a mandatory relevant consideration - greenhouse gas emissions - climate change - whether Minister failed to consider ESD principles - extended review of materials for concept plan approval - balancing of impacts - the public interest - need to secure electricity generation - no error in weighing competing considerations - decision was not manifestly unreasonable - summons dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Evidence Act 1995 Industrial Relations Act 1996 Interpretation Act 1987 Liquor Act 1982 (now repealed). Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005 Supreme Court Act 1970 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Aldous v Greater Taree City Council [2009] NSWLEC 17; (2009) 167 LGERA 13 Attorney-General for the Northern Territory v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1989) 23 FCR 536 Attorney General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21; (1990) 170 CLR 1 Attorney General v World Best Holdings Limited [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557 Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth [1980] HCA 53; (1980) 146 CLR 493 Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 49; (1998) 194 CLR 247 Buck v Bavone [1976] HCA 24; (1976) 135 CLR 110 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135 Coles Myer Limited v O'Brien (1992) 28 NSWLR 525 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135 Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 Croome v State of Tasmania [1997] HCA 5; (1997) 191 CLR 119 Drake-Brockman v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 490; (2007) 158 LGERA 349 Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335 Harrison v…