Woollahra Municipal Council v Minister for Local Government

Woollahra Municipal Council (the Council) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Local Government to refer a proposal for the amalgamation of three local government areas to the Departmental Chief Executive for examination and report. The Council contended that the process undertaken by the delegate of the Departmental Chief Executive, in examining the proposal and preparing a report, failed to comply with the requirements of the *Local Government Act 1993* (NSW) and principles of procedural fairness. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, and Ward JA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were: first, whether the document presented constituted a "proposal" within the meaning of s 218E of the *Local Government Act 1993*; second, whether the delegate's conduct of consultations with the public and private meetings with an accounting firm satisfied the statutory requirement for an "inquiry" under s 218F; third, whether the delegate had regard to all mandatory relevant considerations, specifically the financial advantages or disadvantages for residents and ratepayers, as required by ss 218F(2) and 263(3); fourth, the extent of the delegate's obligation to afford procedural fairness to the Council, including notification of key material; and fifth, the extent of the Boundaries Commission's obligation to afford procedural fairness in its review of the delegate's report. The Court also considered whether misleading statements made by an accounting firm regarding its independent analysis impugned the statutory process.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the document in question sufficiently constituted a "proposal" for the purposes of the Act. It found that the delegate's consultations, while not actively interrogative, nonetheless constituted an "inquiry" as required by the Act, and that the private meetings with the accounting firm did not invalidate this process. The Court held that the delegate had complied with the mandatory considerations, including financial aspects, and that the Council had not been denied procedural fairness as it had opportunities to make submissions. The Court further determined that the Boundaries Commission had also afforded procedural fairness. Finally, the Court concluded that the misleading statements by the accounting firm did not vitiate the statutory process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.