North Adelaide Village Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Corp of City Ofadelaide No. Scciv-02-450

[2002] SASC 150

NORTH ADELAIDE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD  v
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE
[2002] SASC 150

Full Court:  Doyle CJ (Perry and Lander JJ)

1. DOYLE CJ:            This is an application to the Full Court for leave to appeal to the Full Court against a decision by Besanko J refusing leave to serve a summons for judicial review.

2. The Judge refused leave to serve on certain only of the grounds raised in the summons. The summons for judicial review challenges the validity of a provisional development plan approval granted by the respondent, The Corporation of the City of Adelaide. The decision by Besanko J refusing leave to serve is effectively a refusal of leave to proceed by way of judicial review on certain grounds. Leave to serve and therefore leave to proceed, was granted on other grounds.

3. Accordingly the refusal appears to be an interlocutory order for the purposes of s 51(1) of the Supreme Court Act and an appeal lies only with leave of the Judge or of the Full Court. Leave to appeal has not been sought from Besanko J.

4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the Full Court, as it is permitted to do, by r 94.01(1)(b)(ii). The application was made in writing pursuant to r 94.03. The application was considered privately by the Full Court pursuant to rule 94.03(c). The Full Court comprised me, Perry and Lander JJ.

5. We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused because there is no reasonably arguable ground contained in the grounds on which leave to serve was refused by Besanko J.

6. The point raised is short and straightforward. We agree with the reasons given by Besanko J for refusing leave to serve at [20]-[23] of his reasons: North Adelaide Village Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v The Corporation of the City of Adelaide [2002] SASC 135. There is nothing that we can usefully add to those reasons.

7. For those reasons, the order of the Court, which I pronounce on behalf of all members of the Court, is that leave to appeal be refused.