Aerotropolis Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment

[2023] NSWCCA 195

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Limitation periods
4. › Calculation of time
5. › Whether date of triggering event included or excluded
6. › Corresponding date rule
7. › Construction of 'within but not later than 2 years after the date'
8. › National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), s 190(1)(b)
9. › Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), s 13.4(2)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
3. › Reckoning of time
4. › Whether s 36(2) displaced by contrary intention
5. › Whether 'despite anything in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 or any other Act' excludes Interpretation Act
6. › Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 5(2), 36
7. › Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), s 13.4(4)
8. › National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), s 190(3)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Presumption against surplusage
3. › Whether word 'within' given independent operation
4. › Whether 'despite' is facultative or restrictive
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Precedent
3. › Weight of obiter dicta
4. › Intermediate appellate courts
5. › Distinction between 'seriously considered dicta' and 'passing dicta'
6. › Whether primary judge bound to follow obiter remarks of appellate judge on point not argued

Quick Take

The phrase 'within but not later than 2 years after the date' in s 190(1)(b) of the NPW Act and s 13.4(2) of the BC Act excludes the date of the triggering event from the calculation of the limitation period, applying the corresponding date rule. The expression 'despite anything in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 or any other Act' in s 190(3) and s 13.4(4) is facultative and does not displace s 36(2) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), so that where the last day of the limitation period falls on a weekend or public holiday, proceedings may be commenced on the next business day. Obiter remarks of an appellate judge on a point not argued do not constitute 'seriously considered dicta' that a lower court is obliged to follow.