Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ

ARGOS PTY LTD & ORS APPELLANTS

AND

SIMON CORBELL, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ORS RESPONDENTS

Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50 10 December 2014 C3/2014

ORDER

1. The appeal of the second and third appellants be allowed.

2. The first to third respondents pay the costs of the second and third appellants.

3. The appeal of the first appellant be dismissed with costs.

4. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 29 November 2013 insofar as they relate to the second and third appellants and, in their place, order that the second and third appellants have their costs of the proceedings to date in that Court.

5. Remit the matter, insofar as it relates to the second and third appellants, to the Court of Appeal for further hearing on grounds 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6 of the notice of appeal filed in that Court and dated 2 August 2012.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Representation

N C Hutley SC with C L Lenehan for the appellants (instructed by Bradley Allen Love Lawyers)

P J F Garrisson SC, Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory with J J Hutton for the first respondent (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)

M N Allars SC for the second and third respondents (instructed by King & Wood Mallesons)

Submitting appearances for the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents

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

CATCHWORDS

Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development

Administrative law – Judicial review – Standing – Minister approved development application for commercial development – Appellants conducted businesses near site of proposed development – Appellants alleged development would adversely affect their economic interests – Whether appellants are persons aggrieved by the Minister's decision.