The case illustrates the division of opinion on whether time-limited ouster clauses in planning legislation exclude judicial review for breach of procedural fairness. Spigelman CJ held that the presumption against statutory abrogation of procedural fairness requires express words or plain intendment, and that the Hickman principle's approach to strict construction applies to time-limited ouster clauses. However, this was a minority view on the result. The question of whether the statutory planning scheme in the EPA Act excludes common law procedural fairness remains contested, with Meagher JA finding the statutory process sufficient and Powell JA finding the statute excluded the common law duty.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 69 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 69 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.