© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] NSWLEC 225
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2001-09-21
Bignold J
Original judgment source is linked above.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Donnelly and Anor
Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors.
CITATION : Donnelly and Anor v Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors. [2001] NSWLEC 225 APPLICANTS: Donnelly & Anor. PARTIES : RESPONDENTS: Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors. FILE NUMBER(S) : 40243 of 1998 CORAM: Bignold J KEY ISSUES: Development Consent :- challenge to validity-failure to consider environmental impact-Water Permits-challenge to validity by virtue of statutory embargo on application for the water entitlements. Crown Lands Act 1989 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 77(1) s 90(1), s 91, s 91AB, s 110, s 124 LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 1998 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 20(3), s 25B National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 118A, s 176A Water Act 1912 s 10, s 11, s 18F, s 18G, s 22BA Botany Bay City Council v Remath Investments No 6 Pty Ltd (2000) 111 LGERA 446; Canyonleigh Environment Protection Community Inc v Wingecarribee Shire Council (1997) 95 LGERA 294; CASES CITED: Carr v Minister for Land and Water Conservation [2000] NSWLEC 89 109 LGERA 175; Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council (1997) 92 LGERA 420; Minister for Natural Resources v NSW Aboriginal Land Council (1987) 9 NSWLR 154; Mison v Randwick City Council (1991) 23 NSWLR 734 DATES OF HEARING: 08-10/11/00, 19/12/00, 30/01/01, 29/05/01, 15/08/01 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/21/2001
In my opinion, this was a classic case for the application of the maxim whose rationale was explained by Lord Simonds in Morris v Kanssen [1946] AC 459, a company case, where his Lordship said (at 475):
The natural home of the maxim is public law. Where a public official or authority purports to exercise a power or to do an act in the course of his or its duties, a presumption arises that all conditions necessary to the exercise of that power or the doing of that act have been fulfilled. Thus a person who acts in a public office is presumed to have been validly appointed to that office: M'Gahey v Alston (1836) 2 M & W 206 at 211; 150 ER 731 at 733; R v Brewer (1942) 66 CLR 535 at 535 at 548; Hardess v Beaumont [1953] VLR 315 at 318-319. And a Council which must form an opinion as to whether there will be any detriment upon the granting of a planning permit is presumed to have formed the opinion before granting the permit: Pearce v City of Coburg [1973] VR 583.
(2000) 111 LGERA 446
(1997) 95 LGERA 294
(1997) 92 LGERA 420
(1987) 9 NSWLR 154
(1991) 23 NSWLR 734
(2000) 107 LGERA 404
(1996) 91 LGERA 31
(1942) 66 CLR 535