Presiding Member of the Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel v DCSC Pty Ltd

In the case of Presiding Member of the Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel v DCSC Pty Ltd, the primary issue concerned the interpretation and application of planning laws and the effect of a change in law on an ongoing proceeding. The appellant, the Presiding Member of the Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel, challenged a decision made by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) regarding the proposed use of land as a convenience store. The dispute arose from a planning scheme amendment that altered the definition of 'service station', which came into effect before the SAT delivered its final decision on the review. The legal issues included whether the decision on the preliminary issue was binding and final, and whether the respondent had an accrued right to have its development application assessed under the previous law.

The court examined the definitions of 'decision' and 'final decision' under the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), and considered precedents such as Wattleup Road Development Co Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission, which held that a 'decision' includes interim and interlocutory decisions. The court also noted the principle from Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) that the test for determining whether a judgment is final or interlocutory depends on its legal effect rather than its practical consequences. The court held that if a decision on a preliminary issue concludes an issue tried separately, it is considered a final order, binding on the parties unless appealed.

Ultimately, the court determined that the decision on the preliminary issue was binding and final, and that the respondent had an accrued right to have its application assessed under the previous law. The court found that the amendment to the planning scheme did not affect the respondent's right to have its application assessed under the law in force at the time of the initial determination. Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue was upheld as binding and final, and the respondent's application was to be assessed in accordance with the previous law.