Ventana Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corp & Anor [1997] FCA 538
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and Kingston Planning Scheme do not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The Federal Airports Corporation is entitled to Crown immunity, which extends to lessee activities at a Federal airport. Section 7(2)(d) of the Federal Airports Corporation Act requires only that the FAC endeavour to comply with State law regarding non-aviation land uses, but imposes no enforceable legal obligation to obtain State permits.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 June 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Application / Determination of Reserved Questions Under O.29 R.2 of Federal Court Rules (preliminary Questions Before Trial)
- Outcome
- Reserved questions answered as follows: (1) No; (2) Yes; (3) Yes; (4)(a) Yes, (b) Yes; application adjourned for further directions.
- Legal Topics
- ['crown Immunity' 'federal Statutory Corporations' 'application of State Planning Laws to Federal Land' 'leasehold Use at Federal Airports']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Determination of Reserved Questions Under O.29 R.2 of Federal Court Rules (preliminary Questions Before Trial)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and Kingston Planning Scheme bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth' 'Whether Federal Airports Corporation has Crown immunity' 'Whether Crown immunity extends to lessee activities' 'Whether s.7(2)(d) of Federal Airports Corporation Act allows non-aviation uses by lessee without State planning permit']
Ratio Decidendi
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and Kingston Planning Scheme do not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The Federal Airports Corporation is entitled to Crown immunity, which extends to lessee activities at a Federal airport. Section 7(2)(d) of the Federal Airports Corporation Act requires only that the FAC endeavour to comply with State law regarding non-aviation land uses, but imposes no enforceable legal obligation to obtain State permits.
Court Disposition
Reserved questions answered as follows: (1) No; (2) Yes; (3) Yes; (4)(a) Yes, (b) Yes; application adjourned for further directions.
Orders
- ['The questions reserved pursuant to O.29 r.2 of the Federal Court Rules answered: (1) No; (2) Yes; (3) Yes; (4)(a) Yes; (4)(b) Yes.' 'Application adjourned before Ryan J for further directions on a date and at a time to be fixed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment