Local Democracy Matters Inc v Infrastructure NSW; Waverley Council v Infrastructure NSW (No 4)

In the case of Local Democracy Matters Inc v Infrastructure NSW; Waverley Council v Infrastructure NSW (No 4), the primary dispute involved the validity of a decision made by Infrastructure NSW regarding the assessment of infrastructure projects. The parties brought the case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Local Democracy Matters Inc and Waverley Council, challenged the decision on the grounds that it was legally flawed and did not properly consider certain statutory requirements. They argued that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair and that the decision itself was not rationally related to the evidence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Infrastructure NSW had complied with the statutory requirements in making the decision, and if the decision was rational and lawful. The plaintiffs contended that the decision-making process was marred by procedural deficiencies and that the decision did not adequately address the evidence presented. The court was required to determine whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and whether the decision-making process was fair and lawful.

The court examined the legislative framework and the evidence provided to Infrastructure NSW. It held that the decision-making process was procedurally flawed, as there were significant procedural errors that rendered the process unfair. Additionally, the court found that the decision itself was not rationally connected to the evidence. The court concluded that the decision was therefore invalid and quashed the decision made by Infrastructure NSW. As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiffs' challenge to the decision was successful.

The final orders of the court were that Infrastructure NSW's decision was quashed and that each party bear their own costs. The court did not order any additional costs or damages, and the decision stood as a significant ruling on the proper application of statutory requirements and procedural fairness in decision-making processes.