The Court held that the Minister administering the Crown Land Management Act does not have power to sell a Crown road in a manner that effects a subdivision of the land without complying with the subdivision requirements of the EPA Act; the sale of a Crown road as 15 lots constituted a 'subdivision' within s 6.2 of the EPA Act, and the exceptions in s 23G of the Conveyancing Act (for Crown land transactions and land dedicated as public road) were confined to subdivisions necessary to enable the sale itself, not further subdivision for development purposes. The Court also held that the Settlement Agreement reached at mediation was not enforceable by way of specific performance because an essential condition precedent — the Council's agreement to an easement — could not be satisfied, the Council being under no obligation to agree and having indicated its opposition. On the procedural grounds, the Court rejected challenges based on inadequate notice under s 152D (which does not require specification of the number of lots) and failure to consider submissions (finding the Delegate did consider the Council's objections).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.