the sections. For that reason, in my view the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the Planning compliance with sections 153, 154 and/or 155. Authority’s I was therefore obliged to dismiss the interim application. Notwithstanding my dismissing the interim application for want of jurisdiction, I do not suggest that the Planning compliance with sections 153, Authority’s 154 and/or 155 is immune from review. As Dr Jarvis properly observed, Mr Glass might have remedies elsewhere. In (1973) 133 CLR 242, the High Court ruled Scurr v Brisbane City Council that a decision to approve construction of a building was invalid because the Brisbane City Council, prior to making its decision, had not complied with several mandatory procedural requirements concerning the information to be provided in a notice to the public about the proposed development. The High Court ruled that the Brisbane City failure to meet those Council’s mandatory procedural requirements caused members of the public not to appreciate the size and nature of the development, which in turn (on the evidence in that case) compromised the rights of any objectors to the proposal. The Court said: Moreover, unless adequate information is contained in advertisements not only will effective objection be rendered difficult but the very need to object may not be sufficiently appreciated; a failure to object within the seven days or longer permitted by the section produces serious consequences since the right of appeal to the Local Government Court conferred by sub-s. (3) is limited to those who have "duly objected". Accordingly inadequacy of public notice renders nugatory the twin purposes of s. 22, of assisting the council to fulfil its task as a responsible planning authority and of providing those who may be affected by the granting of applications with opportunity to exercise their statutory rights of objection and appeal. An administrative decision may (but need not) be ruled invalid for failure to comply with procedural requirements that must be met prior to making the decision. What course to take depends on the nature and significance of the non-compliance. In [2014] FCA 19 at [120] the Federal Court Coutts v Close said It is also now settled that procedural fairness is not an abstract issue; rather, attention needs to be focused on the question whether conduct which is said to be procedurally unfair produced some practical injustice.
the sections. For that reason, in my view the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the Planning Authority’s compliance with sections 153, 154 and/or 155. I was therefore obliged to dismiss the interim application. Notwithstanding my dismissing the interim application for want of jurisdiction, I do not suggest that the Planning Authority’s compliance with sections 153, 154 and/or 155 is immune from review. As Dr Jarvis properly observed, Mr Glass might have remedies elsewhere. In Scurr v Brisbane City Council (1973) 133 CLR 242, the High Court ruled that a decision to approve construction of a building was invalid because the Brisbane City Council, prior to making its decision, had not complied with several mandatory procedural requirements concerning the information to be provided in a notice to the public about the proposed development. The High Court ruled that the Brisbane City Council’s failure to meet those mandatory procedural requirements caused members of the public not to appreciate the size and nature of the development, which in turn (on the evidence in that case) compromised the rights of any objectors to the proposal. The Court said: Moreover, unless adequate information is contained in advertisements not only will effective objection be rendered difficult but the very need to object may not be sufficiently appreciated; a failure to object within the seven days or longer permitted by the section produces serious consequences since the right of appeal to the Local Government Court conferred by sub-s. (3) is limited to those who have "duly objected". Accordingly inadequacy of public notice renders nugatory the twin purposes of s. 22, of assisting the council to fulfil its task as a responsible planning authority and of providing those who may be affected by the granting of applications with opportunity to exercise their statutory rights of objection and appeal. An administrative decision may (but need not) be ruled invalid for failure to comply with procedural requirements that must be met prior to making the decision. What course to take depends on the nature and significance of the non-compliance. In Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 19 at [120] the Federal Court said It is also now settled that procedural fairness is not an abstract issue; rather, attention needs to be focused on the question whether conduct which is said to be procedurally unfair produced some practical injustice.
glass_v_act_planning_and_land_authority_anor_administrative_review_2016_acat_21.docx