Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd atf Banton Family Trust 2 and Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2024] NSWCA 41

Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd atf Banton Family Trust 2 and Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2024] NSWCA 41

A submission by way of objection is not confined to those made within the statutory exhibition period, and limitations in delegation and policy apply to objections resulting from the notification/exhibition process. In this case, Filetron's submission was a valid objection. However, the delegate had objectively 'resolved' the objection prior to determination, so the limitation did not restrict delegated authority. Substantial compliance with court orders under s 25B and s 25C was achieved, validating regrant of consent. The appeal was dismissed because the delegate acted within authority and compliance with court orders was sufficient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal – Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['delegation of Council Functions' 'development Applications' 'interpretation of Instruments of Delegation' 'judicial Review of Development Consent' 'community Participation' 'sub Delegation' 'orders Under Land and Environment Court Act' 'development Assessment Policy']
['environment and Planning' 'local Government Law'] ['delegation of Council Functions' 'development Applications' 'interpretation of Instruments of Delegation' 'judicial Review of Development Consent' 'community Participation' 'sub Delegation' 'orders Under Land and Environment Court Act' 'development Assessment 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

Appeal / Court of Appeal – Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a delegate had authority to determine a development application with unresolved objections' "Interpretation of 'submission by way of objection' and 'objection resulting from neighbour notification/exhibition process'" 'Whether primary judge erred by limiting objection periods to statutory exhibition periods' 'Effect of council policy and delegated instruments on consent validity' 'Substantial compliance with orders under s 25B and s 25C Land and Environment Court Act']

Ratio Decidendi

A submission by way of objection is not confined to those made within the statutory exhibition period, and limitations in delegation and policy apply to objections resulting from the notification/exhibition process. In this case, Filetron's submission was a valid objection. However, the delegate had objectively 'resolved' the objection prior to determination, so the limitation did not restrict delegated authority. Substantial compliance with court orders under s 25B and s 25C was achieved, validating regrant of consent. The appeal was dismissed because the delegate acted within authority and compliance with court orders was sufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Orders at first instance remain undisturbed.']