43. What then does this mean for the validity of the procedures adopted in the present case? First, Mrs Bruce appeared to contemplate that the preparation of a summary of submission could be regarded, so long as the summary was accurate, as being an administrative function. It could therefore properly be the subject of an authorisation under Section 223(3) since nobody has suggested that the summary of the proceedings on the 6th of December prepared by Mr Pritchett was other than accurate. Secondly the uncontested evidence from the Council witnesses including the Chief Executive Mr Edwards, was that the supporting material provided by way of annexure to the officer's report to each Councillor included in addition to the Pritchett summary, copies of all the written submissions. There is no reason to consider therefore in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 Council has not considered all the submissions. Moreover whilst Section 98 (the general power of delegation to officers) contemplates that there be written instruments, and a register of instruments of delegation is to be kept by the chief executive officer, Section 223(3) merely provides that Council "may authorise" the appropriate members of Council staff to carry out administrative procedures, prescribing no particular formalities to be carried out. The premise upon which Leigh and Bignell's case and the authorities to which it refers were decided is that a decision-maker is assumed to have considered the materials which were placed before him, her or it. Nothing in Leigh and Bignell's case points to a different conclusion to the one I have already reached.