› No breach of duty to afford natural justice established.
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, applied.
Aust Dig Administrative Law [1067]
Administrative Law
› Judicial review
› Grounds of review
› Procedural fairness
› Bias
› Apprehension of bias
› Whether Tasmanian Planning Commission breached the rule against bias
› Where same delegate participated in successive planning stages
› No grounds particularised upon which to apply test for apprehended bias
› No breach of the rule against bias established.
Quick Take
1Where the LUPA Act contemplates that the Commission will both prepare a substantially modified draft amendment under s 40N(1)(d) and approve it under s 40Q(1), the participation of the same delegate in both stages does not of itself give rise to apprehended bias; the applicant must identify with particularity what it is said might lead the decision-maker to decide other than on the merits.
2The content of procedural fairness in statutory planning processes is shaped by the legislative time constraints: where the LUPA Act prescribes tight timeframes for Commission decisions and minimum notice periods for hearings, extended notice well exceeding those minima will generally satisfy the hearing rule, particularly where the affected party had extensive prior engagement across earlier planning stages and failed to engage with the decision-maker to find alternative means of presenting evidence within the statutory envelope.
3An informal or extra-statutory consultative process conducted by the Commission (stage 2) that lacks notification to the planning authority under s 40N(1) does not vitiate a subsequent formal statutory process (stage 3) that complies with Part 3B of the LUPA Act.
