“A special interest alone no justification for joinder”

The Environment, Resources, and Development Court in Emanuele v City of Charles Sturt Assessment Panel [2025] SAERDC 2 recently reaffirmed the well-established test for joinder applications, emphasizing justice and procedural efficiency.

The subject development application sought development approval for the construction of a four storey detached dwelling at 2 Bucknall Court, Tennyson. The Council Assessment Panel refused the application on account of the proposed height, extent and impact of minimal setbacks, overshadowing and earthworks. The Appellant lodged an appeal against the refusal.

The owners of the adjoining dwelling south of the subject land, filed an application to be joined to the appeal proceedings, citing concerns in relation to the height of the building, the rear setback, overshadowing of their solar panels and solar hot water system, overshadowing of their north facing windows and potential impacts from the extent of excavation proposed along the common boundary.

In support of this application, the joinder applicants offered to provide the Court with expert planning and engineering evidence and to allow the Court to view the subject land from their dwelling. The Appellant opposed the joinder application, while CAP raised no objection.

In referencing Moloney v 21-25 South Esplanade Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] SASCA 58, the Court considered whether “the special interest of an adjoining owner will be readily demonstrated where the proposed development is likely to have a materially deleterious, and not merely trivial, impact on the amenity and value of the adjoining owner’s property”.

The Court found that the siting and scale of the proposed dwelling was likely to have an impact upon the joinder applicants’ enjoyment of their land and dwelling, to the degree that satisfied the special interest test. The Appellant conceded that the applicants for joinder had the requisite required special interest, but argued that the value that they would bring to the proceedings would be minimal given that the issues of concern mirrored those of the CAP who indicated it would call expert planning evidence in defence of its decision.

The Court agreed with this argument, and in the interest of efficiency, found that, if joined, the joinder applicants would unduly impact the interests of the parties in the prompt and efficient resolution of the proceedings.

This case reinforces the high threshold for successful joinder applications, and that people seeking to be joined to proceedings must demonstrate not only a special interest, but also how they will add value beyond the arguments and evidence to be called by the existing parties.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Gavin Leydon on +61 8 8210 1225 or gleydon@normans.com.au or Isabella Mulholland on +61 8 8210 1294 or imulholland@normans.com.au.