Nouri & Anor v Australian Capital Territory

The applicants, Nouri and Anor, brought proceedings against the Australian Capital Territory in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of certain provisions of the *Planning and Development Act 2007* (ACT) and the *Planning and Development Regulation 2008* (ACT) as they applied to the applicants' property. Specifically, the applicants challenged the Territory's power to impose certain development conditions and the lawfulness of the process by which those conditions were determined.

The High Court was required to determine whether the impugned provisions of the *Planning and Development Act 2007* (ACT) and the *Planning and Development Regulation 2008* (ACT) were constitutionally valid, particularly in light of the implied freedom of political communication. The central legal question was whether the statutory scheme unduly burdened the freedom of political communication by imposing conditions on development that could be seen as restricting or deterring the expression of political views or engagement in political discourse.

Bell and Gageler JJ considered the nature and scope of the implied freedom of political communication, which protects the freedom of individuals to communicate with each other about political matters. Their Honours analysed whether the planning legislation, in its operation, placed an unreasonable or disproportionate restriction on this freedom. The Court examined the purpose and effect of the relevant provisions, assessing whether they were reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government. The Court found that the provisions did not impermissibly burden the implied freedom.

The High Court dismissed the applicants' application.