ROSS & ANOR -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2000] WASCA 164

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 164
Case No:	SJA:1201/1999	Heard:	14 FEBRUARY & 25 MAY 2000
Coram:	SCOTT J	Delivered:	15/06/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CLIVE MICHAEL ROSS JENNIFER ANNE ROSS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Catchwords:	Building control and town planning Control and regulation of erection, construction and demolition of buildings Town planning and subdivision of land Appeal of Town Planning Appeal Tribunal Standing Appellants not the registered proprietors Memorials registered on title Notification of intending purchasers by memorial entirely appropriate No error demonstrated
Legislation:	Strata Titles Act Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 12A, s 27A
Case References:	Allan v Development Allowance Authority (1999) 163 ALR 31 Bradshaw v Medical Board of Western Australia (1990) 3 WAR 322 Collector of Customs v Pressure Tankers Pty Ltd (1993) 115 ALR 1 Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522 Lloyd v Robinson (1962) 107 CLR 142 O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210 Proctor v Brisbane City Council (1993) 81 LGERA 398 Marford Nominees Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960047; 1 February 1996 Moursellas v Pharmaceutical Council of Western Australia (1992) 10 WAR 240

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ROSS & ANOR -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2000] WASCA 164 CORAM : SCOTT J HEARD : 14 FEBRUARY & 25 MAY 2000 DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1201 of 1999 BETWEEN : CLIVE MICHAEL ROSS

JENNIFER ANNE ROSS

Appellants

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Respondent

Catchwords:

Building control and town planning - Control and regulation of erection, construction and demolition of buildings - Town planning and subdivision of land - Appeal of Town Planning Appeal Tribunal - Standing - Appellants not the registered proprietors - Memorials registered on title - Notification of intending purchasers by memorial entirely appropriate - No error demonstrated

Legislation:

Strata Titles Act

Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 12A, s 27A

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : In person

Respondent : Mr M G Lundberg & Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Appellants : In person

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Allan v Development Allowance Authority (1999) 163 ALR 31

Case(s) also cited:

Bradshaw v Medical Board of Western Australia (1990) 3 WAR 322
Collector of Customs v Pressure Tankers Pty Ltd (1993) 115 ALR 1
Falc Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission (1991) 5 WAR 522
Lloyd v Robinson (1962) 107 CLR 142
O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210
Proctor v Brisbane City Council (1993) 81 LGERA 398
Marford Nominees Pty Ltd v State Planning Commission, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960047; 1 February 1996
Moursellas v Pharmaceutical Council of Western Australia (1992) 10 WAR 240

(Page 3)

1 SCOTT J: This is…

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 Ross 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: [2000] WASCA 164
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ross v Western Australian Planning Commission, the appellants, who were not the registered proprietors of the land in dispute, sought to challenge a decision of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal that dismissed their appeal against the refusal of the respondents to grant a development approval. The appellants argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because they were not the registered proprietors of the land, which was a requirement for standing under the relevant legislation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the appellants had standing to appeal the decision of the Tribunal, given that they were not the registered proprietors of the land. The appellants argued that because their names were mentioned in memorials registered on the title, they had sufficient interest in the land to challenge the decision. The respondents contended that the appellants did not meet the statutory criteria for standing and, therefore, the Tribunal's decision should stand.

The court found that the appellants' standing was not in question as the notification of intending purchasers by the memorials was entirely appropriate. The court held that the appellants had demonstrated a sufficient interest in the land by virtue of the memorials, which provided them with the necessary standing to challenge the decision. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in deciding that the appellants had standing to appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.