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

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

Dr Ryan did not have standing under s 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 because, at the time of the appeal, he was not a permit holder and his participation in the EOI tender process was a preliminary process, not an application for a permit in the legal sense. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
External Appeal Under S 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 / Substantive Hearing Considering Jurisdiction and Merits After Dismissal of the Respondent's Summary Dismissal Application
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed because they were misconceived as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application.
Legal Topics
['local Land Services Act' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'standing to Bring External Appeal' 'travelling Stock Reserve Permits' 'expression of Interest Tender Process' 'merits Review' 'government Policy']
['administrative Law'] ['local Land Services Act' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'standing to Bring External Appeal' 'travelling Stock Reserve Permits' 'expression of Interest Tender Process' 'merits Review' 'government Policy']

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

External Appeal Under S 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 / Substantive Hearing Considering Jurisdiction and Merits After Dismissal of the Respondent's Summary Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Ryan had standing under s 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 to bring an external appeal.' 'Whether participation in the expression of interest tender process constituted an application for a permit.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the application.' "If jurisdiction existed, whether Local Land Services' decision and assessment process should be confirmed on the merits."]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Ryan did not have standing under s 86 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 because, at the time of the appeal, he was not a permit holder and his participation in the EOI tender process was a preliminary process, not an application for a permit in the legal sense. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the application.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed because they were misconceived as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 55 (1) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the proceedings are dismissed because they are misconceived as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application.']