Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd

The dispute in *Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd* concerned the Minister's decision to grant a mining lease over Aboriginal land, following a report and recommendation from a Commissioner appointed under the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976*. Peko-Wallsend Ltd, the respondent, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision, alleging it was based on an improper exercise of power. The matter ultimately came before the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister had failed to take a relevant consideration into account when making his decision, as contemplated by s. 5(2)(b) of the *Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth). This involved considering whether the Commissioner's report, which formed the basis of the Minister's decision, was flawed due to ignorance of material facts and whether submissions from parties who would be detrimentally affected by the recommended action were adequately considered. The Court also considered the principles governing appellate intervention in the exercise of discretion by intermediate appellate courts.

The Court reasoned that for a failure to take a relevant consideration into account to invalidate a decision, the consideration must be one that the decision-maker was legally required to take into account, or one that was so obviously relevant that the decision-maker must have been aware of it. In this instance, the Commissioner's report was found to be deficient because it was made without knowledge of crucial facts and without adequately considering the submissions of those who would suffer detriment. The Minister, by relying on this flawed report without addressing these deficiencies, had failed to take relevant considerations into account. The Court affirmed that an appellate court can interfere with an intermediate appellate court's exercise of discretion if it is demonstrated that the intermediate court erred in law or principle, or if its decision was plainly wrong.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the intermediate appellate court that the Minister's decision was vitiated by an improper exercise of power. The Court ordered that the first appellant pay the costs of the respondents.