IP Property Botany Street Pty Ltd v Territory Planning

[2025] ACTSC 346

Supreme Court of the ACT5 August 2025

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Tribunal proceedings
5. › Failure to hear oral evidence from witnesses
6. › Failure to allow applicant to respond to Tribunal concerns
7. › Whether applicant denied procedural fairness
8. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), ss 23, 26, 86
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
4. › Statutory discretion to extend time limits
5. › Incorrect consideration of discretion
6. › Whether Tribunal misconceived nature of its function
7. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 22P
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
4. › Failure to consider remittal as available option
5. › Whether failure to address central element of case
6. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 68(3)
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from ACAT
3. › Leave to appeal on question of law
4. › Whether error of law identified
5. › Whether more favourable outcome possible
6. › Whether prejudice if leave refused
7. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 86

Quick Take

Where a tribunal provisionally receives evidence and then forms a preliminary adverse view on a threshold issue, it must afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to respond through oral evidence and submissions before deciding the matter. A tribunal cannot treat the 120-day time limit under s 22P of the ACAT Act as an absolute bar to further proceedings without properly considering the statutory discretion to extend time under s 22P(3). The question of whether conditions imposed under s 165 of the repealed Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) effectively amount to amendments under s 144 remains a question of degree to be determined on the facts.