The applicant applied to review a vegetation protection order the respondent made for a tree under section 8 of Brisbane City Council’s Natural Assets Local Law 2003. The applicant applied for judicial review on two grounds. First, on the basis that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of power under section 20(2)(e) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) because the respondent failed to take into account or consider the applicant’s submissions. Second, because the decision by the respondent involved an error of law for the purposes of section 20(2)(f) of the Act because the respondent failed to set out its reasoning in the statement of reasons.
For the first ground, Muir J held that the ground was not made out, for reasons including that the Council officer considered the applicant’s submissions in their entirety as required by s 14 of the local law.
For the second ground, Her Honour dismissed the applicant’s contention that the respondent failed to adequately explain its reasoning. Her Honour held the respondent adequately explained its reasons and was not required to deal with every point raised by the applicant’s submissions.
Scott McLeod KC appeared for the applicant, instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley.
Michael Trim appeared for the respondent, instructed by City Legal.
The judgment is published here.
