Thio and Western Australian Planning Commission

Thio sought review of a decision of the Western Australian Planning Commission which refused approval for a strata subdivision of two lots. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had erred in law by not giving reasons in accordance with s*77 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), had erred in law in considering adverse planning precedent and had failed to afford procedural fairness by raising and relying on the precautionary principle in its determination without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to it. The Court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in law in making its determination, and whether procedural fairness had been afforded to the parties. The Court held that the Tribunal had indeed erred in law in not giving reasons in accordance with s*77 of the Act, and in not affording procedural fairness to the parties by raising and relying on the precautionary principle in its determination without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to it. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, and had not afforded the parties procedural fairness in raising and relying on the precautionary principle. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application for review and set aside the determination of the Tribunal. The Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal differently constituted for re-determination and listed the matter for a directions hearing to programme the matter for final hearing.