Melvista Park Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission

The dispute between Melvista Park Pty Ltd and the Western Australian Planning Commission concerned the approval of a subdivision of rural residential lots in an area where reticulated water was not initially available. The Commission had previously approved the subdivision on the condition that reticulated water would be provided, but subsequently changed its position, deciding to prioritise the provision of reticulated water. This led to the Commission refusing to approve the subdivision, prompting Melvista Park to seek judicial review. The court had to determine whether the Commission's resolution to prioritise reticulated water provision constituted a change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the subdivision approval, and whether the Commission's decision to refuse approval was lawful and rational.

The court examined whether the Commission's resolution to prioritise reticulated water constituted a change in circumstances that warranted reconsideration of the subdivision approval. It also considered whether the Commission had the authority to change its position on reticulated water, and whether the Commission's decision to refuse approval was lawful and rational. The court further examined the procedural fairness of the Commission's decision-making process, including the admissibility of expert evidence from a party to the proceedings, and whether there was any breach of the experts' obligations to the Tribunal.

The court found that the Commission's resolution to prioritise reticulated water provision constituted a change in circumstances that warranted reconsideration of the subdivision approval. The court held that the Commission had the authority to change its position on reticulated water, and that the Commission's decision to refuse approval was not lawful or rational. The court also found that there was no breach of the experts' obligations to the Tribunal, and that the admissibility of expert evidence from a party to the proceedings did not affect the outcome of the case. The court set aside the decision of the Commission to refuse subdivision approval and allowed the application for review.