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

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

The second and third appellants were found to be persons aggrieved under s 3B(1)(a) of the ADJR Act, as the approval of the development was found on the facts to likely reduce their business turnover and profitability – adverse effects material and not remote. The first appellant’s asserted interest was one step further removed or purely contingent, and was held insufficient to satisfy the standing requirement.

Parties
Appellant: Argos Pty Ltd; Appellant: Second appellant (company name not specified); Appellant: Third appellant (company name not specified); First Respondent: Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development; Respondent: Second respondent (company name not specified); Respondent: Third respondent (company name not specified); Respondent: Fourth respondent (not specified); Respondent: Fifth respondent (not specified); Respondent: Sixth respondent (not specified)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal of the second and third appellants allowed; appeal of the first appellant dismissed; orders of the Court of Appeal set aside as they relate to the second and third appellants; costs payable by the first to third respondents to the second and third appellants; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for further...
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Standing, Persons Aggrieved, Development Application Approval, Interpretation of Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act
Administrative Law Judicial Review Standing Persons Aggrieved Development Application Approval Interpretation of Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argos Pty Ltd

Appellant

Second appellant (company name not specified)

Appellant

Third appellant (company name not specified)

Appellant

Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development

First Respondent

Second respondent (company name not specified)

Respondent

Third respondent (company name not specified)

Respondent

Fourth respondent (not specified)

Respondent

Fifth respondent (not specified)

Respondent

Sixth respondent (not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Decision on Appeal From Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second and third appellants are 'persons aggrieved' whose interests are adversely affected by the Minister's decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) s 3B(1)(a) and entitled to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether economic interests adversely affected by planning decisions establish standing under the ADJR Act
  3. 3 Whether the first appellant’s interests are too remote to constitute being a person aggrieved

Ratio Decidendi

The second and third appellants were found to be persons aggrieved under s 3B(1)(a) of the ADJR Act, as the approval of the development was found on the facts to likely reduce their business turnover and profitability – adverse effects material and not remote. The first appellant’s asserted interest was one step further removed or purely contingent, and was held insufficient to satisfy the standing requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal of the second and third appellants allowed; appeal of the first appellant dismissed; orders of the Court of Appeal set aside as they relate to the second and third appellants; costs payable by the first to third respondents to the second and third appellants; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for further...

Orders

  • The appeal of the second and third appellants be allowed.
  • The first to third respondents pay the costs of the second and third appellants.