Legal Research
Cases
Reid v Western Australian Planning Commission

Reid v Western Australian Planning Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 24 October 2016 36 min read

Contents

On this page

REID -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2016] WASCA 181

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 181
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:136/2015	Heard:	11 MAY 2016
Coram:	MARTIN CJ NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	24/10/16
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Decision of judge at first instance set aside Decision of State Administrative Tribunal set aside Matter remitted to State Administrative Tribunal for determination
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LANCE ROBERT REID WAYNE PETER REID WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Planning and development law Appeal from decision of Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal from decision of State Administrative Tribunal Where State Administrative Tribunal had dismissed appellants' application for review of conditions imposed on subdivision approval by Western Australian Planning Commission Whether factual connection between purpose for which conditions were imposed and the likely or possible consequences of the proposed subdivision Clarification of test to be applied when determining validity of a condition imposed on a subdivision
Legislation:	Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (WA) Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)
Case References:	Cardwell Shire Council v King Ranch Australia Pty Ltd [1984] HCA 39; (1984) 53 ALR 632 Lloyd v Robinson [1962] HCA 36; (1962) 107 CLR 142 Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 Reid and Western Australian Planning Commission [2015] WASAT 35 Reid v Western Australian Planning Commission [2015] WASC 293 Thompson v Randwick Municipal Council [1950] HCA 33; (1950) 81 CLR 87 Western Australian Planning Commission v Southregal Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 53 Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 63; (2004) 221 CLR 30

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : REID -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2016] WASCA 181 CORAM : MARTIN CJ

NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 11 MAY 2016 DELIVERED : 24 OCTOBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 136 of 2015 BETWEEN : LANCE ROBERT REID

First Appellant

WAYNE PETER REID

Second Appellant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : CHANEY J

Citation : REID -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2015] WASC 293

File No : GDA 2 of 2015

Catchwords:

Planning and development law - Appeal from decision of Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal from decision of State Administrative Tribunal - Where State Administrative Tribunal had dismissed appellants' application for review of conditions imposed on subdivision approval by Western Australian Planning Commission - Whether factual connection between purpose for which conditions were imposed and the likely or possible consequences of the proposed subdivision - Clarification of test to be applied when determining validity of a condition imposed on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reid v Western Australian Planning Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASCA 181
Decision Date: 24/10/16

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reid v Western Australian Planning Commission involved the appellants, who sought review of conditions imposed on a subdivision approval by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appellants' application for review, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal from that decision. The appellants then sought leave to appeal to the court from the Supreme Court's decision. The central legal issue was whether there was a factual connection between the purpose for which the conditions were imposed and the likely or possible consequences of the proposed subdivision. The court also needed to clarify the test to be applied when determining the validity of a condition imposed on a subdivision.

The court found that the State Administrative Tribunal had not correctly applied the test for assessing the validity of a condition imposed on a subdivision. The tribunal had not considered whether there was a factual connection between the purpose for which the conditions were imposed and the likely or possible consequences of the proposed subdivision. The court held that the tribunal's approach was incorrect, and that the correct test was whether the condition was reasonably necessary to mitigate the impact of the subdivision on the environment, community, or amenity of the area. The court found that the tribunal had not considered whether the conditions were reasonably necessary to mitigate the impact of the subdivision, and had instead focused on whether the conditions were in the public interest. The court held that this approach was incorrect, and that the tribunal needed to consider whether the conditions were reasonably necessary to mitigate the impact of the subdivision.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The decision of the judge at first instance was set aside, as was the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. The matter was remitted to the tribunal for determination. The court held that the tribunal needed to reconsider the appellants' application for review of the conditions imposed on the subdivision approval, applying the correct test for assessing the validity of a condition imposed on a subdivision. The court held that the tribunal needed to consider whether the conditions were reasonably necessary to mitigate the impact of the subdivision on the environment, community, or amenity of the area. The court held that if the tribunal found that the conditions were reasonably necessary, then the conditions were valid. If the tribunal found that the conditions were not reasonably necessary, then the conditions were invalid.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Decision of judge at first instance set aside

Decision of State Administrative Tribunal set aside

Matter remitted to State Administrative Tribunal for determination

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.