Reysson Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Reysson Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge concerning the interpretation of the *Coastal Management Act 2016* (NSW) and the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979* (NSW). The dispute centred on whether land identified on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map, as defined by the *State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018* (NSW), constituted a jurisdictional fact. Specifically, the appellant argued that the primary judge erred in finding that the identification of land as displaying the hydrological and floristic characteristics of coastal wetlands or littoral rainforests, or adjoining such land, was not a jurisdictional fact.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the "proximity area" depicted on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map corresponded in meaning to "adjoining" land as used in section 6(1) of the *Coastal Management Act*. Secondly, the Court needed to assess whether the designation of a proximity area or buffer zone was both rational and proportionate in serving the objects of both the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act* and the *Coastal Management Act*. Finally, the Court was asked to consider whether the Governor, in making an environmental planning instrument, was required to have regard to, approve, or do anything at all in relation to the making of the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's findings. The Court reasoned that the identification of land on the map was not a jurisdictional fact, but rather a matter of statutory interpretation. It found that the "proximity area" on the map was a rational and proportionate legislative device to achieve the objects of the relevant Acts, and that the term "adjoining" in section 6(1) of the *Coastal Management Act* was sufficiently broad to encompass the concept of a proximity area. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the Governor's power to make an environmental planning instrument did not necessitate specific regard to, approval of, or action in relation to the creation of the map itself. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.