Ryan v Northern Tablelands Local Land Services (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 378

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Northern Tablelands Local Land Services (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 378 Hearing dates: 18 August 2021 (Submissions closed 1 October 2021) Date of orders: 22 December 2021 Decision date: 22 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: The decision of the respondent is affirmed. Catchwords: Administrative Law – Local Land Services Act – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – whether applicant has standing to bring review – merits of decision Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Interpretation Act 1987 Local Land Services Act 2013 Local Land Services Regulation 2014 Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: General Steels Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Sayed v Deng [2012] NSWSC 851 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dr Justin Ryan (Applicant) Local Land Services (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant: (Self-Represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00256660

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The applicant Dr Ryan, seeks review of a decision of the respondent, Local Land Services dated 4 August 2020. Dr Ryan had previously held a lease with Local Land Services (LLS) for a portion of land known as Dingo Reserve near Guyra in north eastern NSW. When the lease was up for renewal Dr Ryan sought a further lease of Dingo Reserve. However in mid 2020 following an assessment process LLS awarded the lease to a third party. 2. Dr Ryan wrote to LLS on 6 July 2020 and provided a detailed submission concerning matters relating to his stewardship of Dingo Reserve as Lease Holder, matters pertaining to recent correspondence and negotiations with LLS over the stewardship and renewal, as well as scientific opinion about land use and management as it relates to Dingo Reserve. In essence Dr Ryan sought to 'challenge the decision', as stated in the July 2020 correspondence, believing that his management had created the current positive situation concerning the reserve and that this situation would deteriorate as other lease holders did not have the ability to positively manage the land to the same extent. 3. LLS replied to Dr Ryan on 4 August 2021 and advised that they had reviewed the assessment process and determined that the decision and the process were sound and that the outcome would not be changed. 4. Dr Ryan applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. The nature of the review is by way of an External Appeal. After a preliminary hearing concerning jurisdiction where the Tribunal was not persuaded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Dr Ryan's external appeal, following a full hearing of the matter, I have decided that Dr Ryan does not have standing under the legislation giving rise to the appeal. However for completeness I have also considered the substantive issues raised at hearing and have found that as an application of Government Policy, the decision should be affirmed on the evidence before the Tribunal. Whilst Dr Ryan's arguments hold significant weight and may be valid, the process and criteria used in the assessment and award process were open to LLS to apply. However because Dr Ryan does not have standing the decision of LLS of 4 August 2020 will stand and the application will be dismissed.