Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE HERITAGE ACT 1977 v HADDAD [1991] NSWCA 200 Decision date: 04 February 1991
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Minister Administering the Heritage Act 1977 v Haddad [1991] NSWCA 200
- Case
- [1991] NSWCA 200
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Minister administering the *Heritage Act 1977* (NSW) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Land and Environment Court. The dispute concerned the Minister's refusal to grant an interim heritage order in respect of a property owned by Mr Haddad, which the Minister believed had heritage significance.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Minister had acted lawfully in refusing to grant an interim heritage order. This involved determining whether the Minister had properly considered the relevant criteria under the *Heritage Act 1977* and whether the refusal was affected by an error of law.
The Court of Appeal found that the Minister had failed to properly consider the heritage significance of the property as required by the Act. The Minister's decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the relevant provisions, particularly concerning the assessment of whether the property was of "State significance". The Court held that the Minister had fettered his discretion by applying an incorrect legal test and that the refusal was therefore unlawful. The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Minister had acted lawfully in refusing to grant an interim heritage order. This involved determining whether the Minister had properly considered the relevant criteria under the *Heritage Act 1977* and whether the refusal was affected by an error of law.
The Court of Appeal found that the Minister had failed to properly consider the heritage significance of the property as required by the Act. The Minister's decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the relevant provisions, particularly concerning the assessment of whether the property was of "State significance". The Court held that the Minister had fettered his discretion by applying an incorrect legal test and that the refusal was therefore unlawful. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.