VANMELD PTY LIMITED v FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 6

VANMELD PTY LIMITED v FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 6

The inclusion of subclause 13(3) in the Fairfield LEP was not invalid as the council did not fail to comply with a condition precedent (statutory requirements were satisfied or not shown otherwise); there was no improper purpose or mala fides; the prohibition was authorised by the EPA Act, and the duty to accord procedural fairness was either sufficiently satisfied through statutory procedures or not required in the relevant circumstances. The legislative regime, considering both statutory requirements and the strict approach to privative clauses, did not entitle the appellant to quash cl 13(3) in these proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['statutory Interpretation' 'procedural Fairness' 'privative/privative Clause' 'judicial Review' 'environmental Planning Instruments' 'local Environmental Plans']
['administrative Law' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['statutory Interpretation' 'procedural Fairness' 'privative/privative Clause' 'judicial Review' 'environmental Planning Instruments' 'local Environmental Plans']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the inclusion of cl 13(3) in the Fairfield LEP was invalid due to failure to comply with statutory requirements for public notice/exhibition and submissions' 'Whether the adoption of cl 13(3) denied the appellant procedural fairness' 'Whether the council acted in bad faith or for improper purpose in including cl 13(3)' 'Whether the prohibition in cl 13(3) was authorised by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)' 'Whether s35 of the EPA Act precludes a challenge based on procedural fairness']

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of subclause 13(3) in the Fairfield LEP was not invalid as the council did not fail to comply with a condition precedent (statutory requirements were satisfied or not shown otherwise); there was no improper purpose or mala fides; the prohibition was authorised by the EPA Act, and the duty to accord procedural fairness was either sufficiently satisfied through statutory procedures or not required in the relevant circumstances. The legislative regime, considering both statutory requirements and the strict approach to privative clauses, did not entitle the appellant to quash cl 13(3) in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']