{"id":"administrative-law-act-1978","name":"Administrative Law Act 1978","slug":"administrative-law-act-1978","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"vic","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":28669,"registerId":"vic-administrative-law-act-1978-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Administrative Law Act 1978","content":"Version No. 054\n\n**Administrative Law Act 1978**\n\n**No. 9234 of 1978**\n\nVersion incorporating amendments as at  \n15 October 2014\n\n**table of provisions**\n\n*Section Page*\n\n1 Short title and commencement 1\n\n2 Definitions 1\n\n3 Tribunal decisions may be reviewed 2\n\n4 Procedure for review 2\n\n5 As to orders for review 4\n\n6 Power to impose terms on granting an order for review 4\n\n7 Powers of Court 4\n\n8 Reasons for decision to be furnished by tribunal on request by party concerned 5\n\n9 Interim relief 6\n\n10 Reasons to be part of record 6\n\n11 As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction 7\n\n12 Provisions excluding jurisdiction by Court not to prevail 7\n\n13 Exemption of Ministerial Council 8\n\n14 *Repealed* 8\n\n15 Supreme Court—Limitation of jurisdiction 8\n\nENDnotes 10\n\n1. General Information 10\n\n2. Table of Amendments 11\n\n3. Explanatory Details 14\n\n**Version No.** **054**\n\n**Administrative Law Act 1978**\n\n**No. 9234 of 1978**\n\nVersion incorporating amendments as at  \n15 October 2014\n\nAn Act to make Provision with respect to the Review of certain Decisions made by certain Administrative Tribunals, and for other purposes.\n\n**BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows (that is to say):**\n\n\t1 Short title and commencement\n\n(1) This Act may be cited as the **Administrative Law Act 1978**.\n\n(2) This Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette.\n\n\t2 Definitions\n\nIn this Act unless the context or subject-matter otherwise requires—\n\n***decision*** means a decision operating in law to determine a question affecting the rights of any person or to grant, deny, terminate, suspend or alter a privilege or licence and includes a refusal or failure to perform a duty or to exercise a power to make such a decision;\n\n***person affected*** in relation to a decision, means a person whether or not a party to proceedings, whose interest (being an interest that is greater than the interest of other members of the public) is or will or may be affected, directly or indirectly, to a substantial degree by a decision which has been made or is to be made or ought to have been made by the tribunal;\n\nS. 2 def. of *tribunal* substituted by No. 67/2014 s. 147(Sch. 2 item 1).\n\n***tribunal*** means a person or body of persons who, in arriving at the decision in question, is or are by law required, whether by express direction or not, to act in a judicial manner to the extent of observing one or more of the rules of natural justice, but does not include—\n\n(a) a court of law or a tribunal constituted or presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court; or\n\n(b) a Royal Commission, Board of Inquiry or Formal Review within the meaning of the **Inquiries Act 2014**.\n\nS. 3 amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n\t3 Tribunal decisions may be reviewed\n\ns. 3\n\nAny person affected by a decision of a tribunal may make application (hereinafter called an application for review) to the Supreme Court for an order calling on the tribunal or the members thereof (hereinafter called an order for review) and also any party interested in maintaining the decision to show cause why the same should not be reviewed.\n\n\t4 Procedure for review\n\n(1) An application for review shall be made ex parte not later than thirty days after the giving of notification of the decision or the reasons therefor (whichever is the later) supported by evidence on affidavit showing a prima facie case for relief under section 7.\n\nS. 4(2) amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n(2) The Court, notwithstanding that a prima facie case for relief is disclosed, may refuse any such application if satisfied that no matter of substantial importance is involved or that in all the circumstances such refusal will impose no substantial injustice upon the applicant.\n\nS. 4(3) amended by Nos 10097 s. 174(8)(a), 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), 4/1989 s. 8(1)(a), 41/1995 s. 62(Sch. 1 item 1) (as amended by No. 84/1997 s. 11), substituted by No. 52/1998 s. 311(Sch. 1 item 2.1), amended by Nos 30/2003 s. 81(1), 21/2012 s. 239(Sch. 6 item 2).\n\n(3) If an application for review relates to a proceeding in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under Chapter 7 of the **Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012** in relation to a small claim or under a credit enactment within the meaning of clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the **Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998**, the Court must refuse the application unless it is satisfied that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for relief under section 7 on the ground that—\n\n(a) the Tribunal had or has no jurisdiction in relation to the matter; or\n\ns. 4\n\n(b) there has been a denial of natural justice to a party in the proceeding before the Tribunal.\n\nS. 4(4) inserted by No. 9514 s. 159, amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), substituted by No. 52/1998 s. 311(Sch. 1 item 2.1).\n\n(4) If an application for review relates to a proceeding in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or a determination or order of that Tribunal under the **Residential Tenancies Act 1997**, the Court must refuse the application unless it is satisfied that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for relief under section 7 on the ground that—\n\n(a) the Tribunal had or has no jurisdiction in relation to the matter; or\n\n(b) there has been a denial of natural justice to the applicant or to a party in the proceeding before the Tribunal.\n\n\t5 As to orders for review\n\ns. 5\n\nS. 5(1) amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), repealed by No. 109/1994 s. 34(3)(a).\n\n* * * * *\n\nS. 5(2) amended by Nos 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), 109/1994 s. 34(3)(b)–(c).\n\n(2) An order for review shall contain such directions as the Court thinks fit with respect to the service of the order nisi for review, and as to its return, but unless for good cause shown shall be expressed to be returnable on a date not more than 30 days after its pronouncement.\n\nS. 5(3) amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n(3) The order for review shall state the grounds upon which it is sought to review the decision, but on the return of the order the Court shall have power to amend any of such grounds or to allow such additional grounds as to it seems fit.\n\nS. 6 amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n\t6 Power to impose terms on granting an order for review\n\nThe Court in granting an order for review may grant it on such terms as to costs or security as to it seems fit and may provide for the stay of any proceedings on the decision and may order any implementation of the decision to be restrained.\n\nS. 7 amended by Nos 9549 s. 2(1)(Sch. item 3), 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), 57/1989 s. 3(Sch. item 5.1).\n\n\t7 Powers of Court\n\nUpon the return of the order for review, the Court may discharge the order or may exercise all or any of the jurisdiction or powers and grant all or any of the remedies which upon the material adduced and upon the grounds stated in the order might be exercised or granted in proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or quo warranto or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the decision or for an injunction to restrain the implementation thereof and may extend the period limited by statute for the making of the decision but shall not exercise any other jurisdiction or power or grant any other remedy.\n\n\t8 Reasons for decision to be furnished by tribunal on request by party concerned\n\ns. 8\n\n(1) A tribunal shall, if requested to do so by any person affected by a decision made or to be made by it, furnish him with a statement of its reasons for the decision.\n\nS. 8(2) amended by Nos 10097 s. 174(8)(b), 63/1987 s. 7, 4/1989 s. 8(1)(b), 52/1998 s. 311(Sch. 1 item 2.2).\n\n(2) The request may be made orally or in writing to the tribunal or to any member or officer thereof but must be made either before the giving or notification of the decision or else within thirty days after the decision has come to the knowledge of the person making the request and in any event not later than ninety days after the giving or notification of the decision.\n\n(3) The statement of reasons shall be in writing and furnished within a reasonable time.\n\nS. 8(4) amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n(4) The Supreme Court, upon being satisfied by the person making the request that a reasonable time has elapsed without any such statement of reasons for the decision having been furnished or that the only statement furnished is not adequate to enable a Court to see whether the decision does or does not involve any error of law, may order the tribunal to furnish, within a time specified in the order, a statement or further statement of its reasons and if the order is not complied with the Court, in addition to or in lieu of any order to enforce compliance by the tribunal or any member thereof, may make any such order as might have been made if error of law had appeared on the face of the record.\n\nS. 8(5) amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section a tribunal shall not be bound to furnish a statement of reasons, and the Court shall not be bound to order it to do so, where to furnish the reasons would, in the opinion of the Court, be against public policy, or the person making the request is not a person primarily concerned with the decision and to furnish the reasons would, in the opinion of the Court, be against the interests of a person primarily concerned.\n\nS. 8(6) inserted by No. 52/1998 s. 311(Sch. 1 item 2.3) (as amended by No. 101/1998 s. 22(1)(b)).\n\n(6) Nothing in this section applies to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Business Licensing Authority.\n\nS. 9 amended by No. 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.).\n\n\t9 Interim relief\n\ns. 9\n\nThe Supreme Court, in order to prevent irreparable damage pending judicial review, may by order suspend the operation, or postpone the coming into effect, of a decision made or to be made by a tribunal or restrain the implementing thereof until the expiration of fourteen days from the furnishing by the tribunal of a statement of reasons as provided by subsection (1) of section 8 or for such further time as the Court shall deem fit.\n\n\t10 Reasons to be part of record\n\nAny statement by a tribunal or inferior court whether made orally or in writing, and whether or not made pursuant to a request or order under section 8, of its reasons for a decision shall be taken to form part of the decision and accordingly to be incorporated in the record.\n\nS. 11 amended by No. 57/1989 s. 3(Sch. item 5.2).\n\n\t11 As to who may seek prerogative writ declaration or injunction\n\ns. 11\n\nAny person affected by the decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall have sufficient standing to maintain proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity or an injunction in relation to the decision but nothing in this section shall take away or impair any right to relief otherwise existing or the discretion to refuse any such relief.\n\nS. 12 amended by Nos 57/1989 s. 3(Sch. item 5.3), 68/2009 s. 97(Sch. item 5).\n\n\t12 Provisions excluding jurisdiction by Court not to prevail\n\nAny provision in an Act passed before the commencement of this Act that any proceedings shall not be removed, or that any decision of a tribunal or inferior court shall be final or shall not be quashed or shall not be called in question, and any provision in any such Act which by any similar words excludes any of the powers of the Supreme Court, shall not, as from the commencement of this Act, prevent the removal of proceedings of a tribunal or inferior court into the Supreme Court, nor the quashing or setting aside of a decision of a tribunal or inferior court by that Court, whether for error of law on the face of the record or otherwise, in proceedings for relief or remedy in the nature of certiorari, nor prejudice the powers of that Court to grant relief or remedy in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or by way of declaration of invalidity or injunction in relation to a decision of a tribunal or inferior court or to make any order for review or other order provided for in this Act.\n\nS. 13 inserted by No. 9865  \ns. 2.\n\n\t13 Exemption of Ministerial Council\n\ns. 13\n\n(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to a decision of the Ministerial Council.\n\n(2) In this section—\n\n***Agreement*** means the Agreement made on 22 December 1978 between the Commonwealth and the States in relation to a proposed scheme for the co-operative regulation of companies and the securities industry or, if that agreement is or has been amended or affected by another agreement, that agreement as so amended or affected;\n\n***Ministerial Council*** means the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities established by the Agreement.\n\nS. 14 inserted by No. 2/1986  \ns. 3, amended by Nos 110/1986 s. 140(2) (Sch.), 44/1992 s. 70, 45/1992 s. 66, 107/1993 s. 60, 74/2000 s. 3(Sch. 1 item 4), repealed by No. 26/2003 s. 63.\n\n* * * * *\n\nS. 15 inserted by No. 52/1998 s. 311(Sch. 1 item 2.4), amended by No. 30/2003 s. 81(2) (ILA s. 39B(1)).\n\n\t15 Supreme Court—Limitation of jurisdiction\n\n(1) It is the intention of section 4(3) and (4) as substituted by item 2.1 of Schedule 1 to the **Tribunals and Licensing Authorities (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998**, to alter or vary section 85 of the **Constitution Act 1975**.\n\nS. 15(2) inserted by No. 30/2003 s. 81(2).\n\n(2) It is the intention of section 4(3), as amended by the **Fair Trading (Amendment) Act 2003**, to alter or vary section 85 of the **Constitution Act 1975**.\n\ns. 15\n\n\n\nENDnotes\n\nEndnotes\n\n1. General Information\n\n\nThe **Administrative Law Act 1978** was assented to on 19 December 1978 and came into operation on 1 May 1979: Government Gazette 7 March 1979 page 617.\n\n1. Table of Amendments\n\n\nEndnotes\n\nThis Version incorporates amendments made to the **Administrative Law Act 1978** by Acts and subordinate instruments.\n\n–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––\n\n**Residential Tenancies Act 1980, No. 9514/1980**\n\n| Assent Date: | 23.12.80 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 9.11.81: Government Gazette 21.10.81 p. 3431 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Statute Law Revision Act 1981, No. 9549/1981**\n\n| Assent Date: | 19.5.81 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 19.5.81: subject to s. 2(2) |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Administrative Law (Amendment) Act 1983, No. 9865/1983**\n\n| Assent Date: | 29.3.83 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 29.3.83 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Credit Act 1984, No. 10097/1984**\n\n| Assent Date: | 22.5.84 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 174(8) on 28.2.85: Government Gazette 19.12.84 p. 4483 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Administrative Law (University Visitor) Act 1986, No. 2/1986**\n\n| Assent Date: | 25.3.86 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 1.7.86: Government Gazette 18.6.86 p. 2066 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Supreme Court Act 1986, No. 110/1986**\n\n| Assent Date: | 16.12.86 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 1.1.87: s. 2 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 1987, No. 63/1987**\n\n| Assent Date: | 4.11.87 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 1.2.88: Government Gazette 23.12.87 p. 3472 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Credit (Administration) (Amendment) Act 1989, No. 4/1989**\n\n| Assent Date: | 2.5.89 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | Ss 1–3, 5 on 2.5.89: s. 2(1); ss 4, 6–9 on 29.4.91: Government Gazette 6.3.91 p. 483 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Magistrates' Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 1989, No. 57/1989**\n\n| Assent Date: | 14.6.89 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 4(1)(a)–(e)(2) on 1.9.89: Government Gazette 30.8.89 p. 2210; rest of Act on 1.9.90: Government Gazette 25.7.90 p. 2217 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Swinburne University of Technology Act 1992, No. 44/1992**\n\n| Assent Date: | 23.6.92 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 1.7.92: Government Gazette 1.7.92 p. 1628 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n**Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 1992, No. 45/1992**\n\n| Assent Date: | 23.6.92 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | 1.7.92: Government Gazette 1.7.92 p. 1626 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**University of Ballarat Act 1993, No. 107/1993**\n\n| Assent Date: | 26.11.93 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | Ss 1, 2, 45 on 26.11.93: s. 2(1); rest of Act on 1.1.94: Government Gazette 23.12.93 p. 3380 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Constitution (Court of Appeal) Act 1994, No. 109/1994**\n\n| Assent Date: | 20.12.94 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | Pt 1 (ss 1, 2) on 20.12.94: s. 2(1); rest of Act on 7.6.95: Special Gazette (No. 41) 23.5.95 p. 1 |\n| Current State: | All of Act in operation |\n\n\n**Consumer Credit (Victoria) Act 1995, No. 41/1995** (as amended by No. 84/1997)\n\n| Assent Date: | 14.6.95 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 62(Sch. 1 item 1) on 1.11.96: Government Gazette 29.8.96 p. 2274 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Tribunals and Licensing Authorities (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998, No. 52/1998** (as amended by No. 101/1998)\n\n| Assent Date: | 2.6.98 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 311(Sch. 1 item 2) on 1.7.98: Government Gazette 18.6.98 p. 1512 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Statute Law Revision Act 2000, No. 74/2000**\n\n| Assent Date: | 21.11.00 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 3(Sch. 1 item 4) on 22.11.00: s. 2(1) |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**University Acts (Amendment) Act 2003, No. 26/2003**\n\n| Assent Date: | 13.5.03 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 63 on 1.7.03: Government Gazette 26.6.03 p. 1548 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n**Fair Trading (Amendment) Act 2003, No. 30/2003**\n\n| Assent Date: | 27.5.03 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 81 on 9.10.03: Government Gazette 9.10.03 p. 2589 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Criminal Procedure Amendment (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2009, No. 68/2009**\n\n| Assent Date: | 24.11.09 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 97(Sch. item 5) on 1.1.10: Government Gazette 10.12.09 p. 3215 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, No. 21/2012**\n\n| Assent Date: | 8.5.12 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 239(Sch. 6 item 2) on 1.7.12: Special Gazette (No. 214) 28.6.12 p. 1 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n**Inquiries Act 2014, No. 67/2014**\n\n| Assent Date: | 23.9.14 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Commencement Date: | S. 147(Sch. 2 item 1) on 15.10.14: Special Gazette (No. 364) 14.10.14 p. 2 |\n| Current State: | This information relates only to the provision/s amending the **Administrative Law Act 1978** |\n\n\n–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––\n\n1. Explanatory Details\n\n\nEndnotes\n\nNo entries at date of publication.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 1978 Act established a general framework for reviewing tribunal decisions. Over 36 years of amendments, the scope has narrowed significantly for specific tribunal types. The 1998 and 2003 amendments introduced special restrictions (sections 4(3) and 4(4)) that severely limit Supreme Court review of VCAT consumer credit, small claims, and residential tenancy decisions to only jurisdictional errors and denial of natural justice. The 2014 amendment excluded Royal Commissions and Boards of Inquiry from the definition of 'tribunal'. Additionally, section 13 permanently exempted the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. The Act has evolved from a broad review mechanism to a more targeted one with significant carve-outs for specific administrative bodies."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple defined terms in section 2 including 'decision', 'person affected', and 'tribunal' with specific exclusions","Nested conditional logic in sections 4(3) and 4(4) creating different procedural thresholds for different types of VCAT proceedings","Cross-references to external legislation including the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, Residential Tenancies Act 1997, Inquiries Act 2014, and Constitution Act 1975","Section 15 contains explicit constitutional savings provisions regarding alteration of Supreme Court jurisdiction under the Constitution Act 1975","Historical layering of amendments visible in the text (e.g., section 14 repealed, multiple amendment notes throughout)","Technical legal terminology used without definition (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, natural justice, ex parte, nisi)","Interaction between this Act and the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court Act 1986"],"plain_english_summary":"This Victorian law creates a system for challenging decisions made by administrative tribunals (government bodies that make decisions affecting people's rights, like licensing boards or dispute resolution panels).\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Gives people the right to ask for reasons**: If a tribunal makes a decision that affects you, you can demand a written explanation of why they decided that way (Section 8).\n- **Allows court review**: If you believe a tribunal made a legal error, you can apply to the Supreme Court of Victoria to review the decision (Section 3). This is called an \"order for review.\"\n- **Sets time limits**: You must apply for review within 30 days of being notified of the decision (Section 4).\n- **Limits review in some cases**: For certain everyday disputes handled by VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) — specifically small consumer claims, credit disputes, and residential tenancy matters — the Supreme Court can only review the decision if you can prove the tribunal had no legal power to hear the case (no jurisdiction) or denied someone a fair hearing (denial of natural justice) (Sections 4(3) and 4(4)).\n- **Powers of the court**: On review, the Supreme Court can quash (cancel) decisions, order tribunals to do their job properly, or stop them from acting unlawfully (Section 7). These are traditional legal remedies known as **certiorari** (quashing an unlawful decision), **mandamus** (ordering an official to do their duty), and **prohibition** (stopping an unlawful action).\n- **Overrides \"finality\" clauses**: Even if another law says a tribunal's decision is \"final\" or \"cannot be challenged,\" this Act says the Supreme Court can still review it for legal errors (Section 12).\n- **Standing rules**: You don't need to prove you have a special legal interest beyond being \"affected\" by the decision to bring a challenge (Section 11).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Anyone who has appeared before a Victorian administrative tribunal and lost their case.\n- Tribunals and their members, who must provide reasons for decisions when asked.\n- Lawyers practising administrative law in Victoria.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis Act is a key piece of **judicial review** legislation. It ensures that government decision-makers (tribunals) follow the law and act fairly. Without this law, many tribunal decisions would be immune from court oversight, leaving people with no recourse if a tribunal makes a legal mistake or acts unfairly. The special restrictions on VCAT consumer and tenancy cases reflect a balance between allowing court oversight and preventing minor disputes from being bogged down in expensive Supreme Court litigation."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act as drafted and amended narrows and specifies the Supreme Court’s review role in certain contexts compared with a broad right of review. Sections 4(3)–(4) require the Court to refuse review of particular VCAT proceedings (small claims, certain credit matters, and residential tenancies) unless the applicant establishes a prima facie case on narrow grounds: that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction or there was denial of natural justice. Section 8(6) excludes VCAT and the Business Licensing Authority from the tribunal reasons requirement, producing differential scope of obligations across tribunals. Section 12 removes pre-existing statutory ouster protections, preserving Court review generally, while section 13 exempts Ministerial Council decisions. Section 15 records the legislative intention that the limitations in s.4(3)–(4) alter or vary s.85 of the Constitution Act 1975. Together, these provisions modify the original, broad concept of judicial review by both restricting review in particular administrative niches and preserving or restoring review against statutory ousters."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple procedural requirements and strict time limits for ex parte applications (s.4(1)).","Different legal thresholds for review depending on tribunal and subject-matter (general prima facie case vs. jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice for specified VCAT matters) (s.4(1), s.4(3)–(4)).","Interaction of statutory remedies with historic common-law prerogative writs (remedies listed in s.7 mirror certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and declarations/injunctions).","Broad judicial discretion to refuse applications and to impose terms (s.4(2), s.6), producing case-by-case outcomes.","Obligations on tribunals to furnish written reasons, with statutory exceptions and public-policy carve-outs (s.8(1)–(6)), and differing application across tribunal types (s.8(6)).","Overriding effect on earlier ouster clauses and a specific statutory exemption for the Ministerial Council (s.12, s.13), creating constitutional and inter-instrument relationships.","Possibility of interim relief that affects timing and implementation of administrative decisions (s.9).","Amendments and cross-references to other Acts (e.g. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act) require cross-instrument reading (s.4(3)–(4))."],"plain_english_summary":"What this law does (mechanics)\n\n- The Administrative Law Act 1978 gives people a legal route to ask the Supreme Court to review decisions made by certain administrative tribunals (s.3). An affected person may apply for an \"order for review\" calling the tribunal to show cause why its decision should not be reviewed (s.3).\n\n- Applications are normally made ex parte (without the other side present) and must be filed within 30 days after notification of the decision or of the reasons for it (s.4(1)). The application must be supported by affidavit evidence and must show a prima facie case for the relief described in section 7 (s.4(1)).\n\n- The Court retains discretion to refuse to grant an order for review even if a prima facie case is shown, where the Court is satisfied no substantial matter is involved or refusal causes no substantial injustice (s.4(2)).\n\n- For certain proceedings before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) — small claims, some credit-related matters, and residential tenancies — the Court must refuse an application unless the applicant establishes a prima facie case that either the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or there was denial of natural justice (s.4(3)–(4)).\n\n- If the Court issues an order for review, it will set directions about serving the order and fixing its return date (usually within 30 days) and will state the grounds relied on (s.5(2)–(3)). The Court may amend or allow additional grounds when the order is returned (s.5(3)).\n\n- The Court may attach terms to the order for review (for example as to costs or security), stay proceedings under the decision, or restrain implementation of the decision (s.6).\n\n- On return of the order for review, the Supreme Court may discharge it or exercise the powers and grant remedies analogous to certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or quo warranto, or grant declarations of invalidity or injunctions in relation to the impugned decision; it may also extend any statute-set period for making the decision, but it may not go beyond the remedies listed in section 7 (s.7).\n\n- Tribunals must provide a written statement of reasons to any person affected who requests reasons (s.8(1), (3)). Requests can be made before or within specified time limits (s.8(2)). If a tribunal fails to produce adequate reasons in a reasonable time, the Supreme Court may order the tribunal to furnish reasons and may make orders that could have been made if an error of law appeared on the face of the record (s.8(4)). There are exceptions where furnishing reasons would be against public policy or where the requester is not a person primarily concerned and supplying reasons would be against the interests of a person who is (s.8(5)). Section 8 does not apply to VCAT or the Business Licensing Authority (s.8(6)).\n\n- The Court can grant interim relief to prevent irreparable damage while a review is pending; such orders may suspend or postpone a tribunal decision until 14 days after the tribunal provides reasons (or a longer period the Court considers fit) (s.9).\n\n- Any reasons given by a tribunal (oral or written) are treated as part of the record (s.10). A person affected by a tribunal or inferior court decision has standing to seek prerogative writs or declarations or injunctions, though the Court retains discretion to refuse relief (s.11).\n\n- The Act overrides earlier statutes that attempted to exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction over tribunal proceedings or decisions (s.12). The Act does not apply to decisions of the Ministerial Council (s.13). Section 15 records the legislative intention that the limitations in s.4(3)–(4) alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (s.15).\n\nWhy the Act matters (official purpose-claims and practical effects)\n\n- The Act is expressed to provide a statutory mechanism for judicial review of tribunal decisions (s.3, s.7). The statutory mechanism defines time limits, an ex parte procedure, grounds to be pleaded, and the precise remedies the Supreme Court may grant (s.3–7).\n\n- The text frames two principal objectives: (a) enable affected persons to obtain judicial review of tribunal decisions; and (b) regulate when and how the Supreme Court will intervene (for example by requiring prima facie grounds and allowing the Court to refuse applications where matters are not of substantial importance) (s.3, s.4(1)–(2)). These are claims made by the instrument rather than empirical findings.\n\nCosts, incentives, trade-offs and implementation features (mechanisms, not judgments)\n\n- Who pays: Applicants bear the cost of preparing an ex parte application and supporting affidavits and risk being ordered to pay costs or provide security if the Court imposes such terms on grant of an order for review (s.4(1), s.6). Parties interested in maintaining a decision may incur costs defending the decision when called to show cause (s.3). Tribunals incur the administrative cost of preparing and supplying written reasons on request (s.8(1), (3)).\n\n- Incentives for applicants: The applicant must show a prima facie case for relief under s.7 to obtain an order for review; for specified VCAT matters the applicant is further confined to jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice (s.4(1), s.4(3)–(4)). These thresholds create an incentive to focus applications on legal error rather than merits.\n\n- Incentives for tribunals: Because failure to produce a timely or adequate statement of reasons can lead to interim relief or to Court orders compelling reasons (s.8(4), s.9), tribunals are procedurally incentivised to provide reasons within a reasonable time (s.8(3)).\n\n- Discretion and administrative burden: The Act gives the Supreme Court substantial discretion — to refuse applications despite prima facie material (s.4(2)), to impose terms including security and stays (s.6), and to decide whether providing reasons would be contrary to public policy or adverse to a person primarily concerned (s.8(5)). That discretion concentrates decision-making in the judiciary and introduces case-by-case outcomes.\n\n- Trade-offs and opportunity costs: The Act channels certain disputes into judicial review rather than internal merits review. For VCAT small claims, credit matters and residential tenancies the statute narrows the Court’s role to jurisdictional and natural justice errors (s.4(3)–(4)); that reduces scope for merits-based review in the Supreme Court but preserves judicial oversight for legal error.\n\n- Effects on private choice and certainty: The Act can delay implementation of tribunal decisions where the Court stays or restrains implementation or grants interim relief (s.6, s.9). Conversely, the 30‑day time limit (s.4(1)) imposes a promptness requirement on potential applicants.\n\nConcentrated benefits, diffuse costs, and risks\n\n- The principal, concentrated beneficiaries are persons directly affected by particular tribunal decisions who can obtain judicial review (s.3, s.11). The principal, more diffuse costs are increased judicial workload and tribunal administrative burden in producing reasons and defending decisions, and potential delays to implementation of administrative decisions where interim relief is granted (s.8, s.9).\n\n- The Act also creates potential for increased litigation in areas where parties can show jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice; the statute’s time limits, ex parte procedure and the Court’s discretion shape how that litigation occurs (s.4(1)–(2), s.5, s.7).\n\nImplementation risk and compliance burden\n\n- Implementation depends on tribunals’ capacity to produce reasons within a reasonable time and on the Court exercising its procedural discretions (s.8(3)–(4), s.4(2), s.6). The requirement that reasons be in writing and become part of the record (s.8(3), s.10) is a formal compliance obligation on tribunals. The exclusion of VCAT and the Business Licensing Authority from the reasons requirement (s.8(6)) creates differing compliance burdens across tribunal types.\n\nKey sections cited: s.2 (definitions), s.3 (right to apply), s.4(1)–(4) (time limits, ex parte procedure, special rules for VCAT matters), s.5 (orders for review), s.6 (terms, stay, restraint), s.7 (remedies), s.8 (reasons), s.9 (interim relief), s.10 (reasons part of record), s.11 (standing), s.12 (overriding ouster clauses), s.13 (Ministerial Council exemption), s.15 (intention regarding Constitution Act s.85)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978","history":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978/history","analysis":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/administrative-law-act-1978/documents"}}