Liangis Investments Pty Ltd v Conservator of Flora and Fauna (Administrative Review)
Case
•
[2016] ACAT 134
•25 November 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Liangis Investments Pty Ltd v Conservator of Flora and Fauna (Administrative Review) [2016] ACAT 134
[2016] ACAT 134
25 November 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Liangis Investments Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna not to cancel the registration of a tree located on their property. The decision to review was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The issue for determination was whether the lessee of the land, and not the registered proprietor, could bring a review of the decision regarding the tree's registration. The Tribunal found that the lessee did not have standing to bring the application for review as they were not the person who held the registration.
The Tribunal concluded that the lessee did not hold the registration and was not, therefore, the person who could bring a review of the decision. The Tribunal found that the lessee was not the person who held the registration, and so could not bring the review. The application for review was dismissed, as was the application for costs. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the statutory provisions that outlined the persons who could bring a review, which did not include a lessee of the land where the tree was located. The Tribunal found that the lessee did not have standing to bring the application for review as they were not the person who held the registration.
The Tribunal ordered that the application for review filed on 27 April 2016 be dismissed and that the application for costs be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the lessee did not hold the registration and was not, therefore, the person who could bring a review of the decision. The application for review was dismissed, as was the application for costs. The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory provisions that outlined the persons who could bring a review, which did not include a lessee of the land where the tree was located.
The Tribunal concluded that the lessee did not hold the registration and was not, therefore, the person who could bring a review of the decision. The Tribunal found that the lessee was not the person who held the registration, and so could not bring the review. The application for review was dismissed, as was the application for costs. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the statutory provisions that outlined the persons who could bring a review, which did not include a lessee of the land where the tree was located. The Tribunal found that the lessee did not have standing to bring the application for review as they were not the person who held the registration.
The Tribunal ordered that the application for review filed on 27 April 2016 be dismissed and that the application for costs be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the lessee did not hold the registration and was not, therefore, the person who could bring a review of the decision. The application for review was dismissed, as was the application for costs. The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory provisions that outlined the persons who could bring a review, which did not include a lessee of the land where the tree was located.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Administrative Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Liangis Investments Pty Ltd v Conservator of Flora and Fauna (Administrative Review) [2016] ACAT 134
Most Recent Citation
Shamrock Finance Canberra Pty Ltd v ACT Wealth Services Pty Ltd [2018] ACAT 11
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
6
Casey v Alcock
[2009] ACTCA 1
Thomson v ACT Planning and Land Authority
[2009] ACAT 38
Thomson v ACT Planning and Land Authority
[2009] ACAT 38