A statutory decision-maker exercising discretionary licensing powers that require balancing competing public and private interests does not necessarily owe a duty of care to applicants, particularly where the statute provides a right of appeal on the merits. If any duty exists, it is limited to honestly and carefully considering applications and relevant material, breached only where no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the decision. The existence of a statutory appeal right is a significant factor weighing against the existence of a duty of care but is not necessarily determinative. The question of whether the nature of such discretionary power is suitable for judicial scrutiny remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.