Humich Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Main Roads

[2020] WASCA 175

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Unreasonableness
4. › Whether decision of Commissioner of Main Roads to refuse crossover application lacked evident and intelligible justification
5. › Whether decision attended with reasonable apprehension of bias
6. › Whether Commissioner's mind not open to persuasion
7. › Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 12, reg 14
1. Planning and Environment
2. › Development approval
3. › Crossover applications
4. › Relationship between development approval and crossover approval
5. › Whether JDAP development approval constrained Commissioner's discretion under separate statutory regime
6. › Whether Commissioner bound by location and nature of crossovers approved in development approval
7. › Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 162, s 171A(2)(ba)
8. › Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 12, reg 14
9. › Main Roads Act 1930 (WA), s 13, s 15, s 28A
1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory construction
3. › Independent statutory discretions
4. › Whether exercise of discretion under one statute constrained by decision made under different statute
5. › Whether development approval under planning legislation constrains exercise of power under local government regulations

Quick Take

A development approval granted by a JDAP under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) does not constrain the Commissioner of Main Roads' independent discretion under reg 14 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 (WA) to approve or refuse crossover applications onto declared highways. The Commissioner's approval under reg 14(2) is a precondition to the Shire's power to approve a crossover under reg 12. Where the Commissioner is not required to give formal reasons, the court assesses legal unreasonableness by reference to the outcome of the decision in its factual context, not by treating informal correspondence as exhaustive reasons.