Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Romsey Hotel Pty Ltd & Anor

(2008) 19 VR 422; [2008] VSCA 45

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Merits review
3. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Review of decision refusing approval of premises for gaming
5. › Relevant considerations
6. › Net economic and social impact of approval
7. › Whether detrimental to wellbeing of community
8. › Whether evidence of community opposition was a relevant consideration or merely a piece of evidence
9. › Whether Tribunal erred in failing to consider community opposition
10. › Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic), s 3.3.7(1)(c)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Merits review
3. › Role of primary decision-maker in review proceedings
4. › Weight to be attached to reasons of primary decision-maker
5. › Whether impartiality jeopardised by active participation
6. › Obligation to assist Tribunal
7. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 59
1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Merits review
4. › Scope of jurisdiction of VCAT when reviewing primary decision
5. › Whether Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction primary decision-maker did not have
6. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), ss 42(1), 48, 51(1)
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic)
4. › Approval of premises for gaming
5. › Net economic and social impact
6. › Whether 'social impact' confined to problem gambling
7. › Whether community opposition relevant
8. › Whether 'in principle' objections to gaming relevant
9. › How community opinion to be ascertained
10. › Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic), Part 3, s 3.3.7(1)(c)

Quick Take

Community opposition to the introduction of gaming machines is a mandatory relevant consideration under the 'no net detriment' test in s 3.3.7(1)(c) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic), and 'social impact' is not confined to problem gambling but extends to the subjective perceptions and concerns of community members about the effect of gaming on their community. The Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation should actively participate in VCAT merits review proceedings to support its decisions, and its impartiality is not jeopardised by doing so; the remarks in Branbeau suggesting otherwise are disapproved. VCAT on review has only the jurisdiction of the primary decision-maker and cannot determine planning questions that the Commission had no power to decide.