Watson-Brown v Heaton

Watson-Brown sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales that dismissed his appeal against a development consent. The central issue was whether the tribunal had delegated its decision-making function to an arborist by accepting the recommendations in the arborist’s report, without considering a conflicting report from a second arborist. The primary concern was whether this constituted a ground for leave to appeal under the common law.

The court examined whether the tribunal had indeed delegated its decision-making function to the arborist, effectively bypassing the tribunal's independent judgment. It was noted that the tribunal had accepted the findings of the arborist without considering the conflicting report from another arborist. The court held that the tribunal had not properly exercised its decision-making function by solely relying on the tribunal-appointed arborist’s report. This was seen as an error of law as it amounted to the tribunal delegating its functions to an expert, which is impermissible. The court found that the tribunal had failed to consider all relevant evidence, which warranted the grant of leave to appeal.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the error identified did not affect the overall outcome of the tribunal’s decision. The tribunal’s decision was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.