Melton City Council v Minister for Planning

[2022] VSCA 144

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Error of law on face of record
4. › Decision maker's reference to another decision subsequently found invalid
5. › Whether reference constituted legal conclusion or statement of fact
6. › Whether error material to decision
7. › Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), s 20(4)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Decision maker's reliance on invalid decision of another body
5. › Whether satisfaction under s 20(4) constituted jurisdictional fact
6. › Whether error of law affected jurisdictional fact finding
1. Administrative Law
2. › Ministerial decisions
3. › Planning scheme amendments
4. › Exemption from public consultation requirements
5. › Independent regulatory regimes
6. › Relevance of approval under parallel regime to planning decision
7. › Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), ss 17, 18, 19, 20(4), 35
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Materiality of error
4. › Whether realistic possibility decision could have been different
5. › Discretion to refuse relief for immaterial error

Quick Take

Where an administrative decision maker refers in reasons to a decision made under a parallel regulatory regime, the reference will ordinarily be characterised as a statement of fact about the existence of the decision rather than a legal conclusion as to its validity, particularly where the decision maker had no decision-making authority under the parallel regime and the validity of the other decision was not a precondition to the exercise of the decision maker's own powers. Even if such a reference contains an error of law, it will not be material where there is no realistic possibility the decision could have been different.