matter of the dispute in question does not mean that its interest will be 'sufficient', as those interests do not rise above 'strongly held views'.[14]
Those submissions were expressly based on well-known passages in ACF, which were quoted and relied upon by Judge Chaney in ING.[15]
As set out above, in ING, Judge Chaney said that:[16]
an incorporated or unincorporated body will not gain standing to intervene merely because it has constitutional objects directed to promoting outcomes relevant to the matter under review. Similarly private citizens will not gain standing to intervene merely because they hold strong beliefs or emotions concerning the matter under review.
Case Details
Citation[2025] WASAT 17
CourtSAT
JurisdictionWestern Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
