Re MacTiernan; Ex parte Coogee Coastal Action Coalition Incorporated

The applicant, the Coogee Coastal Action Coalition Incorporated, applied for writs of certiorari and prohibition, and for declarations and related relief against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and for Lands, the Western Australian Planning Commission, the City of Cockburn, Consolidated Marine Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd, Port Catherine Developments Pty Ltd, and Anchorage Industries Pty Ltd in relation to decisions made and to be made concerning the development of land in South Coogee. The applicant sought an order nisi for writs of certiorari and prohibition, and for declarations and related relief against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and for Lands, the Western Australian Planning Commission, the City of Cockburn, Consolidated Marine Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd, Port Catherine Developments Pty Ltd, and Anchorage Industries Pty Ltd. The applicant sought to challenge the validity of the decisions and proposed decisions on grounds including improper purpose, failure to take into account relevant considerations, fettering of discretion and bias. The court found that the applicant had not established an arguable case on any of the grounds of review. The court held that the applicant did not establish an arguable case on the grounds of review numbered 3 to 9 and 12 to 17. The court also held that the applicant did not establish an arguable case on grounds 20, 24, 25, and 26. The court held that the applicant had established an arguable case on grounds 8, 17A (excluding the Minister's alleged decision), 21, and 22A (insofar as it relates to 19). The court also held that the applicant had established an arguable case on grounds 19 and 23A. The court granted an order nisi for a writ of certiorari in relation to grounds of review numbered 8 and the consequential challenge in 17A (excluding the Minister's alleged decision), 21 and 22A (insofar as it relates to 19) and an order nisi for a writ of prohibition in relation to grounds of review 19 and 23A. Otherwise, the court dismissed the application.