Participation and responsiveness in merits review of polycentric decisions: A comparison of development assessment appeals
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAuthor/s
Edgar, AndrewAbstract
The question of whether tribunals operate in an inquisitorial or adversarial manner can be regarded as a starting point for evaluating their processes. It is a question that is also raised in regards to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (LEC). This article argues ...
See moreThe question of whether tribunals operate in an inquisitorial or adversarial manner can be regarded as a starting point for evaluating their processes. It is a question that is also raised in regards to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (LEC). This article argues that the merits review jurisdiction of the LEC generally operates according to an adversarial process. This becomes clear when participation and responsiveness in the LEC is compared with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's Planning and Environment List, which tends to operate according to inquisitorial processes. Particular risks are identified with both adversarial and inquisitorial processes in the context of merits review of development assessment decisions. It is argued that the problems raised by adversarial processes are more fundamental than those raised by inquisitorial processes.
See less
See moreThe question of whether tribunals operate in an inquisitorial or adversarial manner can be regarded as a starting point for evaluating their processes. It is a question that is also raised in regards to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (LEC). This article argues that the merits review jurisdiction of the LEC generally operates according to an adversarial process. This becomes clear when participation and responsiveness in the LEC is compared with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's Planning and Environment List, which tends to operate according to inquisitorial processes. Particular risks are identified with both adversarial and inquisitorial processes in the context of merits review of development assessment decisions. It is argued that the problems raised by adversarial processes are more fundamental than those raised by inquisitorial processes.
See less
Date
2010Source title
Environmental and Planning Law JournalVolume
27Issue
1Publisher
Thomson ReutersLicence
Copyright All Rights ReservedRights statement
This article was published by Thomson Reuters and should be cited as Edgar, A. (2010). Participation and responsiveness in merits review of polycentric decisions : A comparison of development assessment appeals. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 27(1), 36–52. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auFaculty/School
The University of Sydney Law SchoolShare