Peck v Greater Taree City Council

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between Mr. Peck and the Greater Taree City Council. The core of the disagreement concerned the Council's decision to refuse Mr. Peck's application for a permit to construct a dwelling on his land, which was zoned for rural purposes. Mr. Peck contended that the Council's refusal was unreasonable and that the land was, in fact, suitable for residential development.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Council's refusal of the development application was so unreasonable that it could be characterised as legally invalid. This involved an examination of the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, specifically concerning the concept of "unreasonableness" as a ground for invalidity. The Court had to consider the threshold for establishing such unreasonableness and the extent to which a court could substitute its own view for that of the decision-maker.

Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, in their joint judgment, affirmed the principle that for an administrative decision to be invalid on the ground of unreasonableness, it must be "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it." They found that the Council's decision, while perhaps debatable, did not reach this high threshold. The Council had considered relevant factors, including the zoning provisions and the character of the surrounding area, and had exercised its discretion within the bounds of reasonableness. The Court emphasised that the role of the judiciary was not to re-make the decision but to ensure it was made according to law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was affirmed.