Idonz Pty Ltd v National Capital Development Commission - [1985] FCA 612

Re: IDONZ PTY. LIMITED
And: NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; SERTON PTY. LIMITED and A.D.C.
PROPERTIES (VIC) PTY. LIMITED
No. ACT G 66 of 1985
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Neaves J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Decision of National Capital Development Commission approving proposals with respect to the external design and siting of a proposed building in the Civic Centre of the City of Canberra - Approval not to be refused unless necessary for the purpose of securing the carrying out or observance of the policies of the Commission with respect to the planning and development of the City of Canberra - Policies set forth in Civic Centre Policy Plan - Whether Commission bound to give notice of the application for approval to lessee of adjoining property and afford it an opportunity to make submissions - Whether Commission bound to observe the procedures approved under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) - Whether decision-making responsibility had been abrogated - Whether relevant considerations not taken into account - Whether irrelevant considerations taken into account.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s.5

National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 (Cth), ss.3, 11, 12

Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964 (A.C.T.), ss.6, 7, 10, 13

Building Ordinance 1972 (A.C.T.), s.8

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth), ss.5, 6, 9

HEARING

CANBERRA
#DATE 11:12:1985

ORDER

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an application by Idonz Pty. Limited ("the applicant") under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the Judicial Review Act") for an order of review in respect of a decision of the first respondent, the National Capital Development Commission ("the Commission"), made on 19 November 1984. By that decision the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964 (A.C.T.) ("the Design and Siting Ordinance), approved proposals with respect to the external design and siting of a building which is at present under construction on certain land within what is known as the Civic Centre of Canberra. The land is more particularly described as Block 14, Section 23, Division of City in the Australian Capital Territory.

Section 23 is an area of land bounded on the north by an arterial road known as Barry Drive, on the east by Moore Street, on the south by Rudd Street and on the west by Marcus Clarke Street. It is divided into a number of blocks.
The applicant is the lessee under a lease, granted to it by the Commonwealth of Australia ("the Commonwealth") pursuant to the City Area Leases Ordinance 1936 (A.C.T.) ("the City Area Leases Ordinance"), of Block 13 in that section. That block is situate at the corner of Barry Drive and Marcus Clarke Street and on it is erected the Town…

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 Idonz Pty Ltd v National Capital Development Commission 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: [1985] FCA 612
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Idonz Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the National Capital Development Commission approving proposals for a building in Canberra’s Civic Centre. The Commission’s approval was required under the Civic Centre Policy Plan, which set out policies for planning and development in the area. Idonz argued that the Commission had failed to give notice of the application to the lessee of an adjoining property, denying it the opportunity to submit objections. Additionally, Idonz claimed that the Commission had not adhered to procedures outlined in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth). They also argued that the Commission had not taken into account relevant considerations and had instead considered irrelevant ones.

The court considered whether the Commission was bound to give notice to the lessee of the adjoining property and allow it to make submissions. It also examined whether the Commission had to follow the procedures under the Environment Protection Act and whether the decision-making responsibility had been transferred to another body. Furthermore, the court evaluated if the Commission had failed to consider relevant factors and had improperly considered irrelevant ones.

The court held that the Commission was not required to give notice to the lessee of the adjoining property or allow it to submit objections, as such a requirement was not stipulated in the Civic Centre Policy Plan. The court also found that the Commission was not obligated to follow the procedures under the Environment Protection Act, as it was not applicable to the Commission’s decision-making process. The court further determined that the Commission had not transferred its decision-making responsibility to another body and had taken into account relevant considerations. It found no evidence that the Commission had considered irrelevant factors.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.