End
Owner
Owner
Construction Secretary
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
xEndeavour
Construction Secretary
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 3,077
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: xEndeavour
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: Commonwealth
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 78
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78
Basis for Appeal: Error of Law - Misapplication of Res Judica
Res judicata applies only where the same cause of action is litigated under substantially the same law. The 2025 policy introduced new definitions of 'basic materials' and expressly included quartz as a limited block, thereby creating a materially different regulatory framework (the inclusion of a new material in the definition of basic materials). By disregarding these substantive changes, the Court improperly extended res judicata beyond its settled scope (which was that this material was not reasonably assumed to be a basic material).
The DCT reported this plot years ago for using just quartz as a basic block. The court ruled that quartz could not be reasonably be assumed as a basic block. As such, the DCT updated it's policy to expressly provide that quartz was a basic block. This is applied equally to all people being reported for the same reason. The plots were re-reported for the same reason, with policy changes made in accordance with the court verdict on quartz now included expressly in the definition. The court ruled that this was targeted, when the DCT's position has been unchanged for years and that the necessary policy changes and warning was provided.
Courts may review constitutionality and legality, but they cannot strike down policies merely on suspicions of motive unless it violates a constitutional or statutory law. That oversteps judicial review. This change is broad, is a long-standing position of the DCT, and applies equally to every citizen.
The court erred in law by applying res judicata where it acknowledged that there was a material change to policy.
Error of Law: Misapplication of the Constitutional Test for Freedom of Political Communication
The Court erred by applying a heightened standard of review to regulations affecting political communication. The correct test is whether the regulation is reasonably appropriate to serve a legitimate governmental purpose. Instead, the Court introduced a novel requirement of 'objective clarity' and invalidated the 'eyesore' provisions on grounds of vagueness. This constitutes a departure from the DCTs ability to regulate and expands constitutional protection beyond precedent. In fact, it inhibits the DCT to carry out it's core constitutional and statutory functions of administration and infrastructure regulation.
Jurisdictional Error: Improper Invalidation of Administrative Policy
The Court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the 'eyesore' policy invalid on the basis of subjectivity. The Property Standards Act confers on the DCT express authority to define eviction criteria. Administrative regulations of this character are not subject to judicial invalidation merely for being broad or discretionary. The Court thereby intruded into the legislative and executive jurisdiction.
It effectively elevates political builds into a special category where subjective standards, which are supported by policy, won’t survive review if they are an eyesore. This is a free ticket to build a dirt shack which breaks regulations and then to tie it to a political party to prevent eviction. We now can't regulate any political building for eyesore.
There is a practical necessity for there to have discretion or subjectivity in the application of policy:
1. No statute or regulation can anticipate every possible situation.
2. The eviction policy sets out a set of broad principles which are reviewed by a number of individuals before any adverse action is taken for breaching them.
3. Discretion avoids overregulation and keeps the system manageable. Strict rules would require endless, hyper-specific regulations (e.g. banning each possible eyesore block type or design).
4. It encourages creativity.
5. Applying judgment on a case-by-case basis ensures that unique factors are taken into account.
6. Courts generally recognise that some degree of subjectivity is inevitable and lawful in such delegated powers.
7. The DCT is given broad regulatory power. There must be an expectation that we, as administrators, need to exercise judgment.
Relief Granted Ultra Vires
The Court erred in law by directing the Department to revise its policies to include 'clear, objective, and neutrally applicable standards.' Judicial review permits a court to strike down unlawful provisions, but it does not empower the judiciary to prescribe the content of future regulations. This order exceeds the proper limits of judicial relief and constitutes an impermissible intrusion into executive policymaking.
Courts can quash unlawful provisions, but they cannot draft or compel drafting of executive policy. That is a textbook breach of separation of powers.
In General
The court's role in executive policy making is to interpret policy and process. In this case, they have overstepped in overturning legal, long-standing executive policy and then directing updates to policy.
The reported plots are part of approximately 1000 reports made over the past several months. The court incorrectly ruled that it was targeted.
Aesthetic standards are inherently subjective - zoning, planning, and our heritage laws/policy often use terms like 'in character' or 'reasonable.' These terms cannot reasonably be objective.
The Department has consistently applied its policies with fairness, restraint, and reason. The verdict under appeal does not reflect those same principles. Instead, it creates a precedent that is inconsistent with law and inhibits our ability to regulate.
Prayer for Relief
1. Appeal Granted
2. Federal Court verdict vacated
Supporting Evidence: 1. Constitution
2. Property Standards Act
