Mills v Local Lands Services - [2015] NSWCATAD 207

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mills v Local Lands Services [2015] NSWCATAD 207
Hearing dates: 18 May 2015, 15 June 2015, 26 June 2015
Date of orders: 13 October 2015
Decision date: 13 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:
The decision to refuse to issue the permit to the Appellant is confirmed.

Catchwords: external appeal - jurisdiction - travelling stock reserve - long term grazing permit – expression of interest process – meaning of 'adjoins' – relevant consideration - application of policy - legal, factual or discretionary error
Legislation Cited: Local Land Services Act 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Local Land Services Regulation 2014
Cases Cited: Auckland Lai v Warringah Shire Council (1985) 58 LGRA 276
Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd.) Pty Limited (1976) 135 CLR 616
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47
Hornsby Shire Council v Malcolm (1986) 60 LGRA 429
Yammatree Pty Ltd v North West Local Land Service [2015] NSWCATAD 35
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Aubrey Robert Mills (Appellant)
Local Lands Services (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Irish (Appellant)
P Russell (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Cole & Butler (Appellant)
Bell & Johnson (Respondent)

File Number(s): 1510087

reasons for decision

This is an appeal under section 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (“the Act”). It is an external appeal for the purposes of section 31 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (“the NCAT Act”).
The matter concerns a decision of the Respondent, the Local Land Services (“the LLS”) to refuse to issue a Long Term Grazing Permit (“LGP”) in relation to a portion of Travelling Stock Reserve 7800 (“TSR7800”). The Appellant was notified of the decision by email on 7 January 2015. In these reasons I will refer to the portion of TSR7800 that is in issue as “the contested land”.

Background

The general background to the appeal is not in dispute. It is common ground that the Appellant and his wife, Kaye Denise Mills, have been the owners of the property known as "Yooloobil" (“Yooloobil”) since 1979. Yooloobil is located approximately 85 kilometres north of Moree. The Appellant and his wife employ their son, Reece Mills, to manage Yooloobil. They authorised him to manage all dealings in relation to expressions of interest for Long Term Grazing Permits on their behalf.
A nearby property known as “Aralu”, Garah (“Aralu”) wholly affronts the contested land. The principals of Aralu are Cassandra Johnson & Simon Keen of Aralu Farming. Aralu Farming also applied for a LGP over the contested land and was ultimately successful in that application.

The nature of an appeal

The matter is to be determined under section 79 of the NCAT Act and section 86(5) of the Act.
Section 86 of the Act provides:

86 Appeals concerning the issue, cancellation or suspension of permits
(1) An applicant for a permit may appeal to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal against a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mills v Local Lands Services

Details

AGLC: Mills v Local Lands Services [2015] NSWCATAD 207
Case: [2015] NSWCATAD 207
Decision Date: 13 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mills v Local Lands Services, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the refusal by Local Lands Services to issue a long-term grazing permit to the appellant, Mills. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term "adjoins" in the context of a travelling stock reserve and whether the application of relevant policies and considerations by the respondent was legally sound. Mills sought to challenge the decision, arguing that the respondent's interpretation of "adjoins" was erroneous and that the refusal to issue the permit constituted a legal or factual error.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "adjoins" within the relevant statutory framework. The appellant contended that the term should be interpreted broadly to include lands that were in proximity to the travelling stock reserve, whereas the respondent maintained a stricter interpretation. The court was also tasked with determining whether the respondent's application of policy and its consideration of relevant factors in denying the permit was free from legal or factual error.

The court held that the term "adjoins" should be interpreted in its ordinary and natural meaning, which did not encompass lands that were merely in proximity but not directly bordering the reserve. The court found that the respondent's interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and that there was no legal or factual error in the decision-making process. The court further determined that the respondent had appropriately applied the relevant policies and considered all pertinent factors in reaching its decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision to refuse the permit was upheld.

The court's final order confirmed the decision of the respondent to refuse the issuance of the long-term grazing permit to the appellant. The court found no basis to interfere with the respondent's decision, thereby affirming the validity of the process and outcome in denying the permit.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision to refuse to issue the permit to the Appellant is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Mills v Local Lands Services [2015] NSWCATAD 207
Hearing dates:	18 May 2015, 15 June 2015, 26 June 2015
Date of orders:	13 October 2015
Decision date:	13 October 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision to refuse to issue the permit to the Appellant is confirmed.
Catchwords:	external appeal - jurisdiction - travelling stock reserve - long term grazing permit – expression of interest process – meaning of 'adjoins' – relevant consideration - application of policy - legal, factual or discretionary error
Legislation Cited:	Local Land Services Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Local Land Services Regulation 2014
Cases Cited:	Auckland Lai v Warringah Shire Council (1985) 58 LGRA 276 Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd.) Pty Limited (1976) 135 CLR 616 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 Hornsby Shire Council v Malcolm (1986) 60 LGRA 429 Yammatree Pty Ltd v North West Local Land Service [2015] NSWCATAD 35
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Aubrey Robert Mills (Appellant) Local Lands Services (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: H Irish (Appellant) P Russell (Respondent) Solicitors: Cole & Butler (Appellant) Bell & Johnson (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510087