The Court held that the 'sufficiency' requirement in s 8.15(2)(a) of the EP&A Act requires that an issue be addressed in a manner capable of providing proper assistance to the decision-maker, not merely that it will be mentioned; complex questions of legal construction of development consents and application of judicial authority cannot be sufficiently addressed absent a contradictor. The Court further held that s 8.15 operates as a supplementary joinder power with a different statutory test from the UCPR necessity requirement, and that the availability of amicus curiae or Double Bay Marina participation does not preclude the exercise of discretion to join a person as a party under s 8.15. The Court also considered that where a non-party raises a jurisdictional issue not pleaded by either existing party, and that issue is essential to the determination of the proceedings, joinder may be granted even at an early stage before conciliation, with case management powers available to confine the joined party's participation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.