Australia’s High Court has upheld the availability of Supreme Court review for alleged jurisdictional error in an unapproved Victorian planning-scheme amendment.
The dispute concerns a proposed amendment for development in Shepparton North. IGA-related landholders challenged a panel report and sought orders quashing it before the planning minister had approved the amendment.
Section 39 of Victoria’s Planning and Environment Act restricts actions based on failures to follow specified procedural requirements. The minister argued that those provisions prevented the Supreme Court proceeding, or meant the alleged failures could not amount to jurisdictional error.
By majority, the High Court dismissed the minister’s appeal. It held that section 39(8) could not validly prevent a person with standing from seeking Supreme Court relief for jurisdictional error concerning an amendment that had not yet been approved. The Court also refused to imply from section 39(7) that non-compliance with the relevant statutory procedures could never be jurisdictional.
The ruling resolves the preliminary jurisdiction question. It does not itself decide whether the panel report was invalid on the merits.
