The derelict Belconnen shopping centre became the subject of a high-profile dispute in 2011 when then planning minister Simon Corbell used his call-in powers to approve a Woolworths supermarket, retail outlets, a cafe, restaurant and car parks.

An alliance of north Canberra businesses, including local IGA grocery stores backed by Supabarn, appealed the decision in the ACT Supreme Court.

The group argued that Mr Corbell's decision was not consistent with the Territory Plan because the development was too large, would create traffic problems and failed to take into account the economic impact on other commercially viable centres.

It also said Mr Corbell did not have the power to approve the application because it was inconsistent with planning code and that the decision was either an "improper exercise of power" or so unreasonable that "no reasonable person could have so exercised the power".

The group also argued Mr Corbell breached the rules of natural justice and that the decision involved an error of law.

But their legal challenge was dismissed in the Supreme Court and later in the ACT Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal said the group had not identified any "special interests" in addition to their economic interests, and they lacked standing to challenge Mr Corbell's decision.

The alliance took its fight to the High Court on grounds the appeal court did not consider group members would be "aggrieved" by the redevelopment's approval.

The case was heard before the court's full bench on Friday.

In written submissions to the court, the group earlier said the appeal court was distracted by matters that included remoteness and the shop owners' distance from the Giralang shops site.

It said the court focused on a "general rule" thatstated that adverse economic impact because of a decision did not give a party proper standing to appeal.

But Mr Corbell, in his written submissions, said the Court of Appeal never applied any "general rule" about economic detriment, which meant the group's argument to the High Court didn't arise from the judgment under appeal.

The group's counsel, Noel Hutley SC, on Friday argued the expected loss in trade the alliance members would experience was sufficient to demonstrate they would be aggrieved if the redevelopment went ahead, and they should be able to appeal.

"We argue there is no such general rule and it's all based on what the interest is and what the detriment is."

Mr Hutley said affected businesses at Kaleen and Evatt shopping centres could lose between 8 and 9per cent of their annual turnover if the redevelopment went ahead.

He argued the group should not need to provide evidence the redevelopment would have an adverse affect on its "special interests", as well as its economic interests.

"We say this is not supported by anything in the legislation, it's just wrong."

Mr Corbell's legal counsel argued potentially adverse economic impacts on a person or business should not be a consideration in the planning process.

"At this point, without further evidence, it is simply a matter of competition," he said.

"That is a subject matter that is too remote under the planning act."

The High Court reserved its decision and will hand down its judgement at a later date.