❓ This WA parliamentary question asks about Supreme Court challenges faced by the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development in 2002 and 2003. The answer details two challenges that occurred in 2001.
AnsweredQoN 595Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(b) 2002; or (c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
7 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development
Response time
36 days
(b) No. (c) No. (2) (i) In September 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on his appointment of the Panel members for the Inquiry into the City of South Perth. The Supreme Court action alleged that the members of the panel were biased and should not be allowed to continue in their position as members of the Panel. The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(c) No. (2) (i) In September 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on his appointment of the Panel members for the Inquiry into the City of South Perth. The Supreme Court action alleged that the members of the panel were biased and should not be allowed to continue in their position as members of the Panel. The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(2) (i) In September 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on his appointment of the Panel members for the Inquiry into the City of South Perth. The Supreme Court action alleged that the members of the panel were biased and should not be allowed to continue in their position as members of the Panel. The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(c) No. (2) (i) In September 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on his appointment of the Panel members for the Inquiry into the City of South Perth. The Supreme Court action alleged that the members of the panel were biased and should not be allowed to continue in their position as members of the Panel. The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(2) (i) In September 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on his appointment of the Panel members for the Inquiry into the City of South Perth. The Supreme Court action alleged that the members of the panel were biased and should not be allowed to continue in their position as members of the Panel. The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
The judgement of Justice Templeman upheld that there was a perception of bias and the Panel should not remain to continue the Inquiry. RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
RE REYNOLDS & ORS; EX PARTE PIERCE & ORS [2001] WASC 276 (14 September 2001) (ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
(ii) In October 2001, the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development faced a Supreme Court challenge on the decision by his predecessor to uphold an appeal, under Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1995 , against the refusal of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale to renew an extractive industry licence applied for by Bristile Ltd. It was alleged that the then Minister made a jurisdictional error and that he took into account irrelevant considerations. The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
The judgement of Justice Templeman was that the report presented to the Minister was prepared with due care by the officers of the Department of Local Government, after proper consultation with interested parties, and that it presented a fair summary of the relevant facts. The Justice indicated that he was not persuaded that any grounds had been made for the quashing of the Minister’s decision. Consequently, he dismissed the application. RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
RE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT; EX PARTE THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (INC) [2001] WASCA 380 (17 October 2001)
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.