Humich Nominees Pty Ltd v Metro East Joint Development Assessment Panel

The case between Humich Nominees Pty Ltd and the Metro East Joint Development Assessment Panel was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from the imposition of a condition on a development approval by the Panel, requiring the construction of a solid median on a main road. The applicant, Humich Nominees, sought judicial review of the Panel's decision to impose this condition. The central issue was whether the Panel's decision to impose the condition was vitiated by a jurisdictional error. Additionally, the case examined whether the condition was rendered invalid by the power held exclusively by the Commissioner of Main Roads under section 28A of the Main Roads Act 1930 (WA). Another consideration was whether the condition was ambulatory and required the exercise of a power by a third party. The court also addressed the interpretation of the term 'control of access' and whether the Panel's decision was legally unreasonable. Finally, the discretionary considerations in respect of whether to grant a writ of certiorari were examined, particularly whether the refusal to grant certiorari would be an exercise in futility.

The court found that the Panel's decision to impose the condition was vitiated by jurisdictional error. The court held that the Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a condition that was not authorised under the Development Assessment Act 1993 (WA) and conflicted with the powers of the Commissioner of Main Roads. The court found that the condition was not merely ambulatory but required the exercise of a power by a third party, which was outside the Panel's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court interpreted the term 'control of access' narrowly, concluding that the condition did not relate to the Panel's powers. The Panel's decision was deemed legally unreasonable because it was not consistent with the statutory framework governing development approvals. The court considered the discretionary factors and concluded that granting the writ of certiorari was not an exercise in futility. Consequently, the court granted the writ of certiorari and quashed the condition imposed by the Panel in part.