Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randy Kryn (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 22 September 2016 (italicize title and first mention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 591 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Standing of third parties with no direct involvement.

Facts

The third party, a community group called Truth About Motorways, brought a writ of prohibition against Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd to stop the publishing of a prospectus calling for investors in a new toll road proposal in Sydney. The prospectus, claimed Truth About Motorways, was misleading with regard to the number of cars that would use the road and sought an order compelling the publication of corrective advertising. Such action they claimed was misleading per the Trade Practises Act.

Findings

The High Court was asked to determine whether the community group had standing, that is the legal right to bring the legal action.

The High Court of Australia found that a third party could have standing.

  • Although it has been suggested that a stranger could only obtain the remedy of prohibition at the discretion of a court (ex debito justitiae) it has never been doubted that, in a proper case, the remedy is available to a stranger, ie a person without standing in the sense of a special or personal interest. (per Kirby J at 162)
  • It is not accurate to say that for all classes of proceedings the law required that the moving party have a real, or actual, or special interest in the outcome....an absence of a special interest, or of a particular grievance does not preclude a grant of prohibition or certiorari respectively. A stranger may seek habeas corpus and quo warranto may be granted at the suit of either the Attorney-General ex officio, or any other person. (per Callinan J at 211)

The litigation was ultimately dismissed because the community group was unable to provide security for Macquarie’s legal costs but the decision is important as it established a very wide standing in matters of the public interest.

References

High Court of Australia. "Truth About Motorways v Macquarie (2000) 200 CLR 591". Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Environment Defenders Office. "Corporations and Environmental Campaigning Fact sheet". Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Robert Sheldon SC. "Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure". Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_About_Motorways_Pty_Ltd_v_Macquarie_Infrastructure_Investment_Management_Ltd&oldid=740722376"