Mandurah Enterprises Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission

(2008) 38 WAR 276; [2008] WASCA 211

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Compulsory Acquisition
2. › Taking order
3. › Validity
4. › Whether land taken for proper purpose
5. › Whether acquisition consistent with town planning scheme
6. › Whether zoned land may be taken for public purpose
7. › Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), s 161, s 177
8. › Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA), s 13
1. Compulsory Acquisition
2. › Taking order
3. › Scope of power
4. › Whether more land taken than required for railway purposes
5. › Whether acquisition to avoid obligation to construct crossings is for railway purposes
6. › Public Works Act 1902 (WA), s 102
7. › Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), s 161
1. Compulsory Acquisition
2. › Taking order
3. › Improper purpose
4. › Whether acquisition based on mistaken belief as to facts is within power
5. › Whether improper purpose doctrine requires decision to be objectively capable of being within power
1. Compulsory Acquisition
2. › Taking order
3. › Railway authorised by special Act
4. › Whether notice of intention to take required
5. › Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), s 170(2), s 177(2)
6. › Railway (Northern and Southern Urban Extensions) Act 1999 (WA), s 4

Quick Take

Compulsory acquisition under s 13 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) must be consistent with the terms and effect of the relevant town planning scheme; land zoned for private use cannot be taken for a public purpose under that provision. The acquisition of land to avoid the obligation to construct railway crossings under s 102 of the Public Works Act is capable of being for a railway purpose within s 161 of the Land Act (majority view, Murray AJA dissenting). The administrative law doctrine of improper purpose only arises if, on the objective facts, the decision is capable of being within power — a mistake of fact cannot expand legislative power. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation does not prevent a challenge to the validity of a taking order where the advance compensation payment is liable to forfeiture if the taking order is invalid.