Parramatta Business Freedom Association Inc v. Parramatta City Council
This was an application for judicial review of Parramatta City Council's ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas located on the footways of public roads owned by the Council (footway restaurants). The application was brought by a business group on behalf of a group of local restaurants. (Note: smoking in enclosed public spaces is prohibited under the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 - the ban does not apply to footway restaurants).
The Court found that the Council had power to impose smoking bans in footway restaurants as conditions of approval under the Roads Act and the Local Government Act. However, the Court found that the Council had exercised its power invalidly in this case.
Parramatta Business Freedom Association Inc v Parramatta City Council [2012] NSWLEC
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The instrument of delegation by the Council to its General Manager of its powers, functions, duties and authorities limited the delegation by requiring the General Manager to exercise his delegated functions in accordance with and subject to "all and every policy adopted by resolution of the Council and current at the time of the exercise of the functions herein delegated". The General Manager sub-delegated relevant functions, including the approval of outdoor dining, to the Manager Strategic Asset Management in an instrument which stated that the sub-delegation "may only be exercised in a way that is consistent with the policies and decisions" of the Council. In my opinion, as the conditions adopted the extended concept of smoking in SIPP December 2011 which did not appear in SIPP November 2011, the sub-delegate did not exercise his delegated function in a way that was consistent with a policy of the Council, and therefore exceeded his power under the instrument of sub-delegation. In my opinion, the no smoking conditions are invalid for that reason."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
This was an application for judicial review of Parramatta City Council's ban on smoking in outdoor dining areas located on the footways of public roads owned by the Council (footway restaurants). The application was brought by a business group on behalf of a group of local restaurants. (Note: smoking in enclosed public spaces is prohibited under the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 - the ban does not apply to footway restaurants).
The Court found that the Council had power to impose smoking bans in footway restaurants as conditions of approval under the Roads Act and the Local Government Act. However, the Court found that the Council had exercised its power invalidly in this case.