Administrator of Norfolk Island v Jope [2006] NFSC 9

SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

Administrator of Norfolk Island v Jope [2006] NFSC 9

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of determination of Administrative Review Tribunal – jurisdiction of Tribunal to conduct review – whether Tribunal failed to discharge statutory duty to give reasons Held - s 102 of the Planning Act 2002 (NI), and its definition of the expression "planning approval" as extending to a "planning approval" given under the Planning Act 1996 (NI) incorporates by reference all elements of a planning approval given under the earlier Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal had power to conduct the review. However, the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its decision. Appeal allowed in part and proceedings remitted to the Tribunal Administration of Norfolk Island v Walsh [2005] NFSC 6referred to Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 297 referred to Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1995) 60 FCR 456 referred to Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335 referred to Cabal v Attorney-General (2001) 113 FCR 154 referred to Cabal v Attorney-General [2001] FCA 1234referred to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323referred to Trajkovski v Telstra Corp Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 459referred to Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1229discussed Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212 referred to Repatriation Commission v O'Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422 referred to Riordan v Parole Board (ACT) (1981) 34 ALR 322 referred to ADMINISTRATOR OF NORFOLK ISLAND v TERENCE JOPE SC 9 OF 2005

WEINBERG CJ

27 SEPTEMBER 2006

MELBOURNE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NORFOLK ISLAND SC 9 OF 2005

BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF NORFOLK ISLAND