LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 19 AUGUST 2021
HOBART
Thursday, 19 August 2021
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd v Attorney-General
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Mention
Mitchell Allie
4:15pm
For Sentence
Matthew Patrick Gasparin
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
John Charles Reardon
(part-heard)
4:15p.m.
For Sentence
Kane Douglas Mansell
Matthew Lee Pearce
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
Valerie Ann Whittet v Diamando Tamblyn and anor
For R414 Directions Hearing
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd t/as TasWater v Graeme Alain Gilmour and anor
12:00p.m.
For application for mediation
Suzan Natasha Woodford v Alison Rosemary Giles
LAUNCESTON
NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Timothy Michael Darren Langmead
(Part-heard)
4:15 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
ARS
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 270
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd brought an action against the Attorney-General, seeking a declaration that the State had unlawfully exercised its powers under the Planning Act 1993 by refusing to grant a permit for the construction of a tourism facility. The case was heard before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
The legal issues at the heart of this case centred around the interpretation and application of the Planning Act 1993. Cambria Green contended that the State's refusal to issue a permit for their proposed tourism facility was arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the Act. The Attorney-General argued that the decision to deny the permit was within the statutory powers granted by the Act, and was based on legitimate planning considerations. The court had to determine whether the State's decision was lawful and if Cambria Green's rights under the Act had been breached.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 1993, and the principles of administrative law that govern the exercise of statutory powers. The court found that the State's decision to refuse the permit was not arbitrary or capricious, and was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court held that the State had exercised its powers lawfully, and dismissed Cambria Green's claim for a declaration.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd's claim, and ordered that the company pay the Attorney-General's costs of the proceedings.
The legal issues at the heart of this case centred around the interpretation and application of the Planning Act 1993. Cambria Green contended that the State's refusal to issue a permit for their proposed tourism facility was arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the Act. The Attorney-General argued that the decision to deny the permit was within the statutory powers granted by the Act, and was based on legitimate planning considerations. The court had to determine whether the State's decision was lawful and if Cambria Green's rights under the Act had been breached.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 1993, and the principles of administrative law that govern the exercise of statutory powers. The court found that the State's decision to refuse the permit was not arbitrary or capricious, and was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court held that the State had exercised its powers lawfully, and dismissed Cambria Green's claim for a declaration.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd's claim, and ordered that the company pay the Attorney-General's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.