Meek v Minister for Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage

Meek (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage (the respondent) to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of a dwelling on land owned by the applicant. The applicant contended that the Minister's decision was invalid on several grounds, including that it was made for an improper purpose and that the Minister failed to consider relevant matters and took into account irrelevant considerations. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to refuse the permit was vitiated by an improper exercise of power. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister acted for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred, and whether the Minister failed to take into account considerations that were legally required to be taken into account, or took into account considerations that were legally irrelevant.

The court found that the Minister's decision was based on a misapprehension of the relevant statutory provisions and a failure to consider the specific criteria mandated by the legislation for the granting of such permits. The Minister had, in effect, fettered his discretion by adopting a policy that was not authorised by the statute, and had failed to give proper weight to the applicant's submissions and the evidence presented. The legal principle applied was that a public authority must exercise its statutory powers in accordance with the purpose for which those powers were granted and must consider all relevant matters and disregard irrelevant ones.

The High Court ordered that the Minister's decision be quashed and remitted the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.