Corneloup v Launceston City Council [2016] FCA 974

Corneloup v Launceston City Council [2016] FCA 974

The decision to refuse Mr Corneloup a permit to preach was invalid because it was made by a person (Ms Leonard) not authorised to issue or refuse permits under cl 12 of the Malls By-Law; further, the decision was made by inflexibly applying inapplicable Guidelines and with regard to irrelevant considerations, amounting to jurisdictional error. As such, the decision must be quashed and the application determined according to law.

Parties
Applicant: Caleb Corneloup; Respondent: Launceston City Council; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Error, Procedural Fairness, Authority of Decision Maker, Ultra Vires, Implied Freedom of Political Communication, Freedom of Religion, Discrimination, Interpretation of by Laws
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Jurisdictional Error Procedural Fairness Authority of Decision Maker Ultra Vires Implied Freedom of Political Communication +3 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caleb Corneloup

Applicant

Launceston City Council

Respondent

Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's decision to reject the permit application was affected by jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether the Council's Guidelines were inconsistent with the By-Law made under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas)
  3. 3 Whether the decision-maker applied the Guidelines inflexibly and had regard to irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse Mr Corneloup a permit to preach was invalid because it was made by a person (Ms Leonard) not authorised to issue or refuse permits under cl 12 of the Malls By-Law; further, the decision was made by inflexibly applying inapplicable Guidelines and with regard to irrelevant considerations, amounting to jurisdictional error. As such, the decision must be quashed and the application determined according to law.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • A writ of certiorari issue directed to the respondent quashing its decision, made on 27 March 2015, to refuse the applicant a permit to preach in the Launceston City malls.
  • A writ of mandamus issue directed to the respondent requiring it to consider and determine the applicant's application according to law.