Argos Pty Ltd v Simon Corbell; [2014] HCA 50: Person aggrieved by Ministerial Decision

In Argos Pty Ltd v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50 handed down today (10 December 2014), the High Court of Australia has allowed the appeals of two ACT supermarket businesses, holding that they are persons aggrieved by the decision of the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The appeals related to the approval of an application for the commercial development on a site near their supermarket premises. Further, a majority of the Court also dismissed an appeal by the landlord of one of the appellant businesses holding that the landlord was not “a person aggrieved” by the approval decision of the Minister.

The Parties and Nature of the Minister’s Decision

The Minister’s decision was made in 2011 under the Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) section 162 which relates to the process for deciding development applications. The decision was to approve a development application made by the second and third respondents for a commercial development, which was to include a supermarket and specialty shops, at the Giralang Local Centre in the ACT. The second and third appellants both ran supermarket businesses at a Local Centre near Giralang. The first appellant is the second appellant's landlord.

Relevant Legislation

The relevant legislation on appeal was the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) (the ADJR Act) section 5 which deals with applications for review and, provided that a person aggrieved by a decision was entitled to apply to the ACT Supreme Court, to have that decision reviewed on one or more grounds stated in section 5(1). As well, the ADJR Act section 3B(1)(a) provided that a reference to a "person aggrieved" by a decision includes a reference to "a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision" and was relevant to establishing standing for the appellants.

Earlier Proceedings

The appellants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision in the ACT Supreme Court under the ADJR Act (see Argos Pty Ltd v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2012] ACTSC 102 (6 July 2012)). The primary judge in that matter, Justice Burns, found that, by increasing competition and reducing the annual turnover of the Local Centres at which they conduct their businesses, the development would have an adverse economic effect on the businesses of the second and third appellants. Further, Justice Burns accepted that the first appellants economic interests may be "indirectly affected" by the development. However, he decided that none of the appellants were persons aggrieved by the Minister's decision, because the adverse effects were "too remote" and the business interests of the appellants were not "directly affected".

On appeal to the Court of Appeal (see Argos Pty Ltd v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2013] ACTCA 51 (29 November 2013)) the appellants' appeals were dismissed , the court stating at para [59] of the case:

The decision of the Court of Appeal adhering to the general rule that:

The High Court Decision

By special leave, the appellants appealed to the High Court.

In the High Court by unanimous decision, the existence of the “general rule” was rejected by the High Court, the court holding that the second and third appellants had demonstrated that they were each a person whose interests are adversely affected by the Minister's decision and that they are therefore, each a person aggrieved by the decision.

Further, the majority of the High Court found that the first appellant, the second appellant's landlord, had not established that its interests are adversely affected by the decision of the Minister. The majority of the High Court also held that the statutory criteria for standing under section 3B did not alter according to the scope and purpose of the enactment under which a decision is made or purported to be made.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

• Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development [2014] HCA 50 (10 December 2014)
• Argos Pty Ltd & Ors v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development & Ors [2013] ACTCA 51 (29 November 2013)
• Argos Pty Ltd & Ors v Simon Corbell, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development & Ors [2012] ACTSC 102 (6 July 2012)
• Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) as reported in the TimeBase LawOne Service