Where a planning authority has a conflict of interest arising from its dual role as statutory decision-maker and contractual party to a development agreement, an arguable case of bias may exist even where the agreement expressly preserves the authority's statutory discretion and the prejudgment test alone would not be satisfied. The appropriate test for corporate bias of planning authorities based on conflict of interest (as distinct from prejudgment) remains unresolved. The Minister has no discretion under s 33(2)(l) of the Scheme Act to withhold a scheme amendment from the Governor where the Commission recommends it proceed and s 33(2)(ka) is not activated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.