COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSFORD v CUNNINGHAM AND ANOR; COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSFORD v CUNNINGHAM AND ANOR [1997] NSWCA 81

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSFORD vy CUNNINGHAM & ANOR; COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSFORD vy CUNNINGHAM & ANOR

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MASON P, GROVE and BROWNIE AJJA 2 April 1997, 29 April 1997 [1997] NSWCA 81

Administrative law — judicial review — Valuer General's determination — whether failure to take into account relevant considerations — whether Wednesbury unreasonableness

Gosford City Council (the appellant) commenced proceedings in the Administrative Division of the Supreme Court seeking to quash the Valuer General's (first respondent) determinations concerning two parcels of land owned by the second respondents in each appeal. The valuations were for the purposes of compensation for acquisition of the land by the appellant. Newman J rejected the challenge to each determination and the appellant appealed to this Court.

On appeal, the appellant sought to argue that the determinations were invalid on the grounds of: (i) failure to take account of relevant factors (namely, Flood study and Wetland study); and (ii) "Wednesbury" unreasonableness.

Held appeal dismissed:

The reasoning process of the Valuer General in reaching the determinations did not evince Wednesbury irrationality or a failure to have regard to relevant matters.

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu (1996) 185 CLR 259; Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] | KB 223; applied.

CCSU v Minister [1985] AC 374; Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 1 83 CLR 273; Wouters v DCT (1988) 20 FCR 342; Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 16; referred to.

The Crown v Murphy (1990) 64 ALJR 593; discussed.