Nettheim v Minister for Planning and Local Government & Anor [1988] NSWLEC 138

Nettheim v Minister for Planning and Local Government & Anor [1988] NSWLEC 138

It was open in law for the Minister to make the 4 July 1988 decision despite the earlier revocation decision being under challenge, because the Minister was not functus officio. On the evidence, the applicant did not prove that the Minister acted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, took irrelevant matters into account, or failed to consider the relevant material placed before him; the real or dominant purpose was to consider the matter afresh in light of the material said by the applicant and Actors' Equity to be relevant. The application was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for a Declaration That the Minister's Decision to Revoke Permanent Conservation Order No. 151 Was Invalid / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['validity of Ministerial Decision' 'revocation of Permanent Conservation Order No. 151' 'heritage Council Recommendation' 'functus Officio' 'bad Faith and Improper Purpose' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']
['administrative Law' 'environmental and Planning Law' 'heritage Conservation'] ['validity of Ministerial Decision' 'revocation of Permanent Conservation Order No. 151' 'heritage Council Recommendation' 'functus Officio' 'bad Faith and Improper Purpose' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Declaration That the Minister's Decision to Revoke Permanent Conservation Order No. 151 Was Invalid / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Minister's decision on 4 July 1988 to revoke Permanent Conservation Order No. 151 was invalid because the Heritage Council had not recommended revocation." 'Whether the Minister was functus officio because an earlier decision to revoke Permanent Conservation Order No. 151 had not yet been declared invalid.' 'Whether the second decision was vitiated by bad faith, improper purpose or the taking into account of irrelevant matters.' "Whether the Minister failed to consider adequately, or at all, relevant and significant material within the Department's knowledge concerning the status of the Capitol."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was open in law for the Minister to make the 4 July 1988 decision despite the earlier revocation decision being under challenge, because the Minister was not functus officio. On the evidence, the applicant did not prove that the Minister acted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, took irrelevant matters into account, or failed to consider the relevant material placed before him; the real or dominant purpose was to consider the matter afresh in light of the material said by the applicant and Actors' Equity to be relevant. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application should be dismissed.']