Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ENFIELD APPELLANT

AND

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

COMMISSION & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5

10 February 2000

A37/1998

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside Orders 2 and 3 of the orders made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on 25 July 1997.

3. Set aside Order 4 of the orders made by the Full Court on 25 July 1997 in so far as it deals with the payment of costs by the appellant to the second respondent.

4. Remit the matter to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia for the determination of the remaining grounds of appeal to that Court.

5. Second respondent to pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and any costs of the first respondent in this Court.

6. Costs of the proceedings before Debelle J in the Supreme Court of South Australia and in the Full Court to abide the outcome of the appeal to the Full Court, and to be determined by that Court.

2.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia

Representation:

A J Besanko QC with G K Feary for the appellant (instructed by Piper Alderman)

No appearance for the first respondent

D F Jackson QC with B R M Hayes QC for the second respondent (instructed by Johnson Lawyers)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission

Administrative law – Judicial review of administrative discretion – Jurisdictional facts – Consent of statutory authority to provisional development plan – Consent prohibited if development "non-complying" – Classification a jurisdictional fact – Whether statutory authority exceeded power – Whether weight to be accorded to opinion of statutory authority upon judicial review – Whether court restricted to evidence before statutory authority.