Mackenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria

[2021] VSCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2020 0073

MAIRIANNE MACKENZIE & ORS (according to the attached schedule)	Applicants
v
HEAD, TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA	First respondent
and
MINISTER FOR PLANNING	Second respondent

---

JUDGES:	TATE, KYROU and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 April 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 100
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VSC 328 (Richards J)

---

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – Judicial review – Review of decisions by Minister in respect of Stage 2 of Western Highway duplication project – Whether works could not lawfully proceed until Minister’s assessment of the environmental effects considered by councils – No planning permit required – Exemptions from notice – No reliance on earlier Ministerial assessment – Precautionary principle – Environment Effects Act 1978 ss 8, 8B, 8C, 8F; Planning and Environment Act 1987 ss 12(2)(b), 29, 35; Transport Integration Act 2010 s 19 – Leave to appeal refused.

EVIDENCE – Admissibility of reports not before Minister when making decision – Whether reports contained admissions against interest – Whether reports demonstrate failure to exercise jurisdiction – Whether reports demonstrate absence of intelligibility – Whether contents admissible under Prasad principle – Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155, Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia (2005) 148 FCR 446, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr DRJ O’Brien	Michael I Kennedy & Associates
For the First Respondent	Mr CM Caleo QC with Mr T Barry	Minter Ellison
For the Second Respondent	Mr DJ Batt QC with Ms ECV Porter	Victorian Government Solicitor

TATE JA
KYROU JA
KENNEDY JA:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary................................................................................	2
The legislation......................................................................................................	5
(1)      The EE Act.................................................................................................	5
(2)      The Planning Act.......................................................................................	10
The EES process for the Stage 2 works ............................................................	15
(1)      Request for advice whether EES is needed.................................................	15
(2) Preparation of an EES —the Scoping Requirements and the Ministerial Guidelines...................................................................................................	16
(3)      VicRoads EES — September, 2012............................................................	25
(4)      The Panel....................................................................................................	28
(5)      The 2013 Ministerial assessment................................................................	30
(6)       The LOT error — Media release 2015.......................................................	34
(7)      Expiry of Amendment C27 — February 2017...........................................	35
(8)      The Exemption and the Approval and Adoption decisions — December 2017...........................................................................................	35
Grounds 1 and 2 —Section 8C of the EE Act...................................................	38
Grounds 3 and 4(a) and (b) — Exclusion of evidence ...................................	51
Summary of pleadings relevant to grounds 3 and 4(a) and (b).............................	53
Judge’s decision on respondents’ objections to admissibility of excluded reports..	60
Parties’ submissions on grounds 3 and 4(a) and (b)..............................................	63
Decision on grounds 3 and 4(a) and (b).................................................................	65
(1)       Did excluded reports contain admissions by respondents?..................	66
(2)       Did excluded reports fall within the Prasad principle?........................	68
(3)       Did contents of excluded reports constitute jurisdictional facts?........	69
(4)       Can excluded reports demonstrate constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction?..........................................................................................	70
(5)       Can excluded reports demonstrate absence of intelligible foundation for decisions?..............................................................................................	71
Ground 6 — the Scoping Requirements...........................................................