City of Darwin v The Heritage Council & Anor

[2024] NTSC 95

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Hearing rule
4. › Duty to afford opportunity to be heard
5. › Multi-stage decision making process
6. › Whether preliminary decision in statutory scheme excluded requirement for procedural fairness
7. › Whether public consultation period sufficient substitute for natural justice
8. › Heritage Act 2011 (NT), ss 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Materiality of breach
4. › Whether realistic possibility decision could have been different
5. › Standard of reasonable conjecture
1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory interpretation
3. › Validity of administrative acts
4. › Failure to comply with procedural requirements
5. › Whether failure to record minutes renders decision invalid
6. › Project Blue Sky test
7. › Heritage Act 2011 (NT), ss 136, 137
1. Heritage Law
2. › Heritage assessment
3. › Nomination and assessment process
4. › Extension of assessment period
5. › Meaning of 'place'
6. › Application of heritage assessment criteria
7. › Heritage Act 2011 (NT), ss 5, 11, 23, 24, 25

Quick Take

The Heritage Council must afford landowners procedural fairness, including an opportunity to be heard, before deciding that a nominated place is of heritage significance under s 25(1) of the Heritage Act 2011 (NT). The 28-day public consultation period under s 26 is not a sufficient substitute for natural justice to directly affected landowners. A resolution under s 137(4) permitting a conflicted member to participate need not use the statutory language or be formally minuted to be valid, but proper minutes should record such decisions.