Robertson v Minister for Planning

Case [2008] NSWADT 240



CITATION: Robertson v Minister for Planning [2008] NSWADT 240
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Ian Robertson

RESPONDENT
Minister for Planning
FILE NUMBER: 083017
HEARING DATES: On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 25 March 2008
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

27 August 2008
BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED: Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2007] NSWADT 216
Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604
Egan v Chadwick (1999) 49 NSWLR 563
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWADT 204
McGuirk v University of New South Wales (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 17
P v Greater Western Area Health Service [2007] NSWADT 87
Re Anderson and Department of Special Minister of State (No 2) (1986) 11 ALN 239
Retain Beacon Hill High School Committee Inc v NSW Treasury [2007] NSWADT 55
University of New South Wales v McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362
University of New South Wales v McGuirk (No 2) [2008] NSWADTAP 8
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
I Latham, barrister

RESPONDENT
R Bhalla, solicitor
ORDERS: The decision under review is affirmed.


1 By an application dated 14 December 2007, the Applicant made a request to the Minister for Planning (“the Respondent”) for documents pursuant to section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 ("the FOI Act). His request was in the following terms:

          “I request access to document(s) concerning:

          (i) Draft bill or bills arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any of the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.

          (ii) Draft legislation arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.

          (iii) Draft Explanatory Memorandum or Memoranda for draft legislation leading to or incorporating all or any of the proposals set out in the Discussion/Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.

          (iv) Instructions to Parliamentary Counsel as to the drafting of bills and/or legislation and/ explanatory memorandum or memoranda arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.”

2 The Respondent's FOI Coordinator and Policy Advisor, Ms Maree Keft, made a determination in respect of the request on 11 January 2008. She refused access to the documents pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Ms Keft made the determination to refuse access to the documents that she identified as falling within the scope of the application and stated:

          “The documents contain information that was prepared for submission to Cabinet. The documents also contain information that relates directly to recommendations made within a Cabinet Minute. Accordingly, the documents are exempt by virtue of clauses 1(1)(a), (b) and (e), clauses 9(1)(a)(i)(ii) and (b) and clause 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act.

          My determination of today' s date is that access to all documents captured by the scope of your application has been refused.”

3…

Continue reading Robertson v Minister for Planning

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robertson v Minister for Planning [2008] NSWADT 240
Case
[2008] NSWADT 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robertson v Minister for Planning, the applicants, Mr and Mrs Robertson, sought to challenge the Minister for Planning's decision to refuse their application for development approval on their property in Sydney. The applicants argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and that the Minister had failed to properly consider relevant environmental factors. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Cummins.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable and whether the Minister had failed to take into account relevant environmental considerations. The applicants argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable as it was not based on the evidence and that the Minister had not properly considered the impact of the proposed development on the local environment. The Minister, on the other hand, contended that the decision was reasonable and that all relevant factors had been taken into account.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Cummins found that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable and that all relevant environmental factors had been considered. The court found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the applicants' development application and that the decision was not flawed by any error of law. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the Minister had failed to take into account any relevant environmental considerations. As such, the court dismissed the applicants' appeal and affirmed the decision under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.