{"id":"qld:act-1991-100","name":"Judicial Review Act 1991","slug":"judicial-review-act-1991","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"100 of 1991","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":104875,"registerId":"qld-act-1991-100-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"pt.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Preliminary","content":"# Preliminary","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"pt.1-div.1","sectionType":"division","heading":"Introductory","content":"## Introductory","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"sec.1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"### sec.1 Short title\n\nThis Act may be cited as the Judicial Review Act 1991 .","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"pt.1-div.2","sectionType":"division","heading":"Interpretation","content":"## Interpretation","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"sec.3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"### sec.3 Definitions\n\nIn this Act—\ncertiorari order means an order the relief or remedy under which is in the nature of, and to the same effect as, the relief or remedy that could, but for section 41 , have been granted by means of a writ of certiorari.\ncompetitive commercial activity means an activity carried on, on a commercial basis, in competition with a person, other than—\nthe Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or\na State authority; or\na local government authority.\ncorporatised corporation means a corporate entity under the Local Government Act 2009 .\ns 3 def corporatised corporation ins 1997 No. 23 s 74\namd 2000 No. 46 s 3 sch ; 2002 No. 34 s 74 sch 6\nsub 2009 No. 17 s 331 sch 1\ncourt means the Supreme Court.\nduty includes a duty imposed on a person in the person’s capacity as a servant of the Crown.\nenactment means an Act or statutory instrument, and includes a part of an Act or statutory instrument.\nGOC ...\ns 3 def GOC ins 1994 No. 38 s 19\nom 1995 No. 23 s 27 (1)\njudge means a judge of the Supreme Court.\nperson includes an unincorporated body.\nprerogative injunction means an injunction of the kind mentioned in section 42 (2) .\nprerogative order means an order of a kind mentioned in section 41 (2) .\nprohibition order means an order the relief or remedy under which is in the nature of, and to the same effect as, the relief or remedy that could, but for section 41 , have been granted by means of a writ of prohibition.\nrail government entity see the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , schedule 6 .\ns 3 def rail government entity ins 2013 No. 19 s 120 sch 1\nreasons , in relation to a decision, means—\nfindings on material questions of fact; and\na reference to the evidence or other material on which the findings were based;\nas well as the reasons for the decision.\nreview , in part 1 , division 3 , includes a review by way of—\nreconsideration, rehearing or appeal; or\nthe grant of an injunction or of a prerogative or statutory writ or order; or\nthe making of a declaratory or other order.\nreviewable matter means—\na decision; or\nconduct, including conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\na failure to make a decision or to perform a duty according to law.\nroyalty see the Taxation Administration Act 2001 , schedule 2 .\ns 3 def royalty ins 2020 No. 30 s 6\nrules of court mean the rules of court of the Supreme Court.\ns 3 def rules of court sub 1995 No. 23 s 27\nservice includes the Queensland Police Service.\nState authority means an authority or body (whether or not incorporated) that is established by or under an enactment, but does not include a local government authority.\nstatutory order of review means an order on an application made—\nunder section 20 in relation to a decision; or\nunder section 21 in relation to conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\nunder section 22 in relation to a failure to make a decision.\n- (a) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or\n- (b) a State authority; or\n- (c) a local government authority.\n- (a) findings on material questions of fact; and\n- (b) a reference to the evidence or other material on which the findings were based;\n- (a) reconsideration, rehearing or appeal; or\n- (b) the grant of an injunction or of a prerogative or statutory writ or order; or\n- (c) the making of a declaratory or other order.\n- (a) a decision; or\n- (b) conduct, including conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\n- (c) a failure to make a decision or to perform a duty according to law.\n- (a) under section 20 in relation to a decision; or\n- (b) under section 21 in relation to conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\n- (c) under section 22 in relation to a failure to make a decision.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"sec.4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Meaning of decision to which this Act applies","content":"### sec.4 Meaning of decision to which this Act applies\n\nIn this Act—\ndecision to which this Act applies means—\na decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment (whether or not in the exercise of a discretion); or\na decision of an administrative character made, or proposed to be made, by, or by an officer or employee of, the State or a State authority or local government authority under a non-statutory scheme or program involving funds that are provided or obtained (in whole or part)—\nout of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or\nfrom a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.\n- (a) a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment (whether or not in the exercise of a discretion); or\n- (b) a decision of an administrative character made, or proposed to be made, by, or by an officer or employee of, the State or a State authority or local government authority under a non-statutory scheme or program involving funds that are provided or obtained (in whole or part)— (i) out of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or (ii) from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.\n- (i) out of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or\n- (ii) from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.\n- (i) out of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or\n- (ii) from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"sec.5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Meaning of making of a decision and failure to make a decision","content":"### sec.5 Meaning of making of a decision and failure to make a decision\n\nIn this Act, a reference to the making of a decision includes a reference to—\nmaking, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order, award or determination; or\ngiving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission; or\nissuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument; or\nimposing a condition or restriction; or\nmaking a declaration, demand or requirement; or\nretaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article; or\ndoing or refusing to do anything else;\nand a reference to a failure to make a decision is to be construed accordingly.\n- (a) making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order, award or determination; or\n- (b) giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission; or\n- (c) issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument; or\n- (d) imposing a condition or restriction; or\n- (e) making a declaration, demand or requirement; or\n- (f) retaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article; or\n- (g) doing or refusing to do anything else;","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"sec.6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Making of report or recommendation is making of a decision","content":"### sec.6 Making of report or recommendation is making of a decision\n\nIf provision is made by an enactment for the making of a report or recommendation before a decision is made, the making of the report or recommendation is itself taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be the making of a decision.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"sec.7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Meaning of person aggrieved","content":"### sec.7 Meaning of person aggrieved\n\nIn this Act, a reference to a person aggrieved by a decision includes a reference—\nto a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision; or\nin the case of a decision by way of the making of a report or recommendation—to a person whose interests would be adversely affected if a decision were, or were not, made in accordance with the report or recommendation.\nIn this Act, a reference—\nto a person aggrieved by conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\nto a person aggrieved by a failure to make a decision;\nincludes a reference to a person whose interests are, or would be, adversely affected by the conduct or failure.\n(sec.7-ssec.1) In this Act, a reference to a person aggrieved by a decision includes a reference— to a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision; or in the case of a decision by way of the making of a report or recommendation—to a person whose interests would be adversely affected if a decision were, or were not, made in accordance with the report or recommendation.\n(sec.7-ssec.2) In this Act, a reference— to a person aggrieved by conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or to a person aggrieved by a failure to make a decision; includes a reference to a person whose interests are, or would be, adversely affected by the conduct or failure.\n- (a) to a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision; or\n- (b) in the case of a decision by way of the making of a report or recommendation—to a person whose interests would be adversely affected if a decision were, or were not, made in accordance with the report or recommendation.\n- (a) to a person aggrieved by conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; or\n- (b) to a person aggrieved by a failure to make a decision;","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"sec.8","sectionType":"section","heading":"Conduct engaged in for making decision—preparatory acts","content":"### sec.8 Conduct engaged in for making decision—preparatory acts\n\nA reference in this Act to conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision includes a reference to the doing of anything preparatory to the making of the decision, including—\nthe taking of evidence; or\nthe holding of an inquiry or investigation.\n- (a) the taking of evidence; or\n- (b) the holding of an inquiry or investigation.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"sec.9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Power conferred by enactment—non-statutory scheme or program","content":"### sec.9 Power conferred by enactment—non-statutory scheme or program\n\nA reference in this Act to the exercise of a power conferred by an enactment includes a reference to the exercise of a power, or performance of a function, under a non-statutory scheme or program involving funds that are provided or obtained (in whole or part)—\nout of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or\nfrom a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.\n- (a) out of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or\n- (b) from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"pt.1-div.3","sectionType":"division","heading":"Relationship with other review rights","content":"## Relationship with other review rights","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"sec.10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Rights conferred by Act additional to other review rights","content":"### sec.10 Rights conferred by Act additional to other review rights\n\nThe rights conferred by this Act on a person to make an application to the court in relation to a reviewable matter are in addition to any other rights that the person has to seek a review of the matter (whether by the court, another court or a tribunal, authority or person).\nSubject to section 41 , the existence of a remedy by way of an application for review does not exclude any jurisdiction of the court to grant other relief.\n(sec.10-ssec.1) The rights conferred by this Act on a person to make an application to the court in relation to a reviewable matter are in addition to any other rights that the person has to seek a review of the matter (whether by the court, another court or a tribunal, authority or person).\n(sec.10-ssec.2) Subject to section 41 , the existence of a remedy by way of an application for review does not exclude any jurisdiction of the court to grant other relief.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"sec.11","sectionType":"section","heading":"When application for other review may be dismissed","content":"### sec.11 When application for other review may be dismissed\n\nDespite section 10 , but without limiting section 48 , the court, or another court, may, in a proceeding instituted otherwise than under this Act, dismiss an application for review of a reviewable matter because an application has been made to the court under section 20 to 22 or 43 in relation to the matter.","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"sec.12","sectionType":"section","heading":"When application for statutory order of review may be dismissed","content":"### sec.12 When application for statutory order of review may be dismissed\n\nDespite section 10 , but without limiting section 48 , the court may dismiss an application under section 20 to 22 or 43 that was made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter because—\nthe applicant has sought a review of the matter by the court or another court, otherwise than under this Act; or\nadequate provision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of the matter by the court or another court.\n- (a) the applicant has sought a review of the matter by the court or another court, otherwise than under this Act; or\n- (b) adequate provision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of the matter by the court or another court.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"sec.13","sectionType":"section","heading":"When application for statutory order of review must be dismissed","content":"### sec.13 When application for statutory order of review must be dismissed\n\nDespite section 10 , but without limiting section 48 , if—\nan application under section 20 to 22 or 43 is made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter; and\nprovision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of the matter by another court or a tribunal, authority or person;\nthe court must dismiss the application if it is satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice, that it should do so.\n- (a) an application under section 20 to 22 or 43 is made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter; and\n- (b) provision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of the matter by another court or a tribunal, authority or person;","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"sec.14","sectionType":"section","heading":"When application for statutory order of review concerning interim initial proceeding must be dismissed","content":"### sec.14 When application for statutory order of review concerning interim initial proceeding must be dismissed\n\nDespite section 10 , but without limiting section 48 , if—\nan application under section 20 to 22 or 43 is made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter made or engaged in by a tribunal, authority or person in the course of a proceeding (the initial proceeding ) before the tribunal, authority or person (the decision-maker ); and\nreview of the matter is available because of provision made by a law (including this Act) under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review by the court, another court, or another tribunal, authority or person, of any decision of the decision-maker at the end of the initial proceeding; and\nthe court considers that it is desirable to dismiss the application in order to avoid interference with the due and orderly conduct of the initial proceeding because, in all the circumstances, the balance of convenience (including the interests of the applicant, another party or another person, the public interest and the consequences of delay in the initial proceeding) so requires;\nthe court must dismiss the application if it is satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice, that it should do so.\n- (a) an application under section 20 to 22 or 43 is made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter made or engaged in by a tribunal, authority or person in the course of a proceeding (the initial proceeding ) before the tribunal, authority or person (the decision-maker ); and\n- (b) review of the matter is available because of provision made by a law (including this Act) under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review by the court, another court, or another tribunal, authority or person, of any decision of the decision-maker at the end of the initial proceeding; and\n- (c) the court considers that it is desirable to dismiss the application in order to avoid interference with the due and orderly conduct of the initial proceeding because, in all the circumstances, the balance of convenience (including the interests of the applicant, another party or another person, the public interest and the consequences of delay in the initial proceeding) so requires;","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"sec.15","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exercise of powers under div 3","content":"### sec.15 Exercise of powers under div 3\n\nA power under this division to dismiss an application—\nmust be exercised by order; and\nmay be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding, but the court concerned must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\nThe court may make an order under this division—\nof its own motion; or\non an application by a party to the proceeding.\nThe court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under this division.\nAn appeal may be brought from an order of the court under this division only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\n(sec.15-ssec.1) A power under this division to dismiss an application— must be exercised by order; and may be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding, but the court concerned must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\n(sec.15-ssec.2) The court may make an order under this division— of its own motion; or on an application by a party to the proceeding.\n(sec.15-ssec.3) The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under this division.\n(sec.15-ssec.4) An appeal may be brought from an order of the court under this division only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\n- (a) must be exercised by order; and\n- (b) may be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding, but the court concerned must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\n- (a) of its own motion; or\n- (b) on an application by a party to the proceeding.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"pt.1-div.4","sectionType":"division","heading":"Relationship with other laws","content":"## Relationship with other laws","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"sec.16","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act","content":"### sec.16 Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act\n\nIf—\na provision of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth) expresses an idea in particular words; and\na provision of this Act appears to express the same idea in different words because of different legislative drafting practice;\nthe ideas must not be taken to be different merely because different words are used.\nA comparative table of the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth) is set out in schedule 3 .\n(sec.16-ssec.1) If— a provision of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth) expresses an idea in particular words; and a provision of this Act appears to express the same idea in different words because of different legislative drafting practice; the ideas must not be taken to be different merely because different words are used.\n(sec.16-ssec.2) A comparative table of the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth) is set out in schedule 3 .\n- (a) a provision of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth) expresses an idea in particular words; and\n- (b) a provision of this Act appears to express the same idea in different words because of different legislative drafting practice;","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"sec.17","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### Section sec.17\n\ns 17 om 2001 No. 73 s 96 sch 1","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"sec.18","sectionType":"section","heading":"Operation of other laws","content":"### sec.18 Operation of other laws\n\nThis Act has effect despite any law in force at its commencement.\nHowever, this Act does not—\naffect the operation of an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 1 ; or\napply to decisions made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 2 .\ns 18 sub 1995 No. 23 s 28\n(sec.18-ssec.1) This Act has effect despite any law in force at its commencement.\n(sec.18-ssec.2) However, this Act does not— affect the operation of an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 1 ; or apply to decisions made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 2 .\n- (a) affect the operation of an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 1 ; or\n- (b) apply to decisions made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment mentioned in schedule 1 , part 2 .","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"pt.1-div.5","sectionType":"division","heading":"Application of Act","content":"## Application of Act","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"sec.18A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of Act to GOCs, rail government entities and State electricity entities","content":"### sec.18A Application of Act to GOCs, rail government entities and State electricity entities\n\nThis Act does not apply to—\na decision of a GOC mentioned in schedule 6 to the extent provided under the application provision mentioned for the GOC in the schedule; or\na decision of a rail government entity to the extent provided under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , section 486 ; or\na decision of a State electricity entity within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1994 to the extent provided under section 256 of that Act.\ns 18A ins 1994 No. 38 s 20\nsub 2013 No. 19 s 120 sch 1\namd 2016 No. 36 s 44\n- (a) a decision of a GOC mentioned in schedule 6 to the extent provided under the application provision mentioned for the GOC in the schedule; or\n- (b) a decision of a rail government entity to the extent provided under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , section 486 ; or\n- (c) a decision of a State electricity entity within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1994 to the extent provided under section 256 of that Act.","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"sec.18B","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### Section sec.18B\n\ns 18B ins 1997 No. 23 s 75\namd 2000 No. 46 s 3 sch ; 2009 No. 17 s 331 sch 1\nsub 2010 No. 23 s 352 sch 1\nom 2012 No. 33 s 192 sch","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"sec.18C","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of Act to State and relevant entity under Transport Infrastructure Act 1994","content":"### sec.18C Application of Act to State and relevant entity under Transport Infrastructure Act 1994\n\nThis Act does not apply to a decision of the State or a relevant entity made in carrying out its functions under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , chapter 8 , part 3A .\nIn this section—\nfunctions includes powers.\nrelevant entity see the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , section 279A .\ns 18C ins 2010 No. 19 s 43\n(sec.18C-ssec.1) This Act does not apply to a decision of the State or a relevant entity made in carrying out its functions under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , chapter 8 , part 3A .\n(sec.18C-ssec.2) In this section— functions includes powers. relevant entity see the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 , section 279A .","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"pt.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Jurisdiction","content":"# Jurisdiction","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"sec.19","sectionType":"section","heading":"Jurisdiction of Supreme Court","content":"### sec.19 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court\n\nThe court has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made to it under this Act.","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"pt.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Statutory orders of review","content":"# Statutory orders of review","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"sec.20","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for review of decision","content":"### sec.20 Application for review of decision\n\nA person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision.\nThe application may be made on any 1 or more of the following grounds—\nthat a breach of the rules of natural justice happened in relation to the making of the decision;\nthat procedures that were required by law to be observed in relation to the making of the decision were not observed;\nthat the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision;\nthat the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;\nthat the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;\nthat the decision involved an error of law (whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision);\nthat the decision was induced or affected by fraud;\nthat there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision;\nthat the decision was otherwise contrary to law.\nThis section applies only to a decision made after the commencement of this Act.\n(sec.20-ssec.1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision.\n(sec.20-ssec.2) The application may be made on any 1 or more of the following grounds— that a breach of the rules of natural justice happened in relation to the making of the decision; that procedures that were required by law to be observed in relation to the making of the decision were not observed; that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision; that the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made; that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which it was purported to be made; that the decision involved an error of law (whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision); that the decision was induced or affected by fraud; that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision; that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.\n(sec.20-ssec.3) This section applies only to a decision made after the commencement of this Act.\n- (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice happened in relation to the making of the decision;\n- (b) that procedures that were required by law to be observed in relation to the making of the decision were not observed;\n- (c) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision;\n- (d) that the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;\n- (e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;\n- (f) that the decision involved an error of law (whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision);\n- (g) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;\n- (h) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision;\n- (i) that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"sec.21","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for review of conduct related to making of decision","content":"### sec.21 Application for review of conduct related to making of decision\n\nIf a person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in conduct for the purpose of making a decision to which this Act applies (whether by the person engaging in the conduct or by another person), a person who is aggrieved by the conduct may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the conduct.\nThe application may be made on any 1 or more of the following grounds—\nthat a breach of the rules of natural justice has happened, is happening, or is likely to happen, in relation to the conduct;\nthat procedures that are required by law to be observed in relation to the conduct have not been, are not being, or are likely not to be, observed;\nthat the person proposing to make the decision does not have jurisdiction to make the proposed decision;\nthat the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made does not authorise the making of the proposed decision;\nthat the making of the proposed decision would be an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made;\nthat an error of law—\nhas been, is being, or is likely to be, committed in the course of the conduct; or\nis likely to be committed in the making of the proposed decision;\nthat fraud has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place, in the course of the conduct;\nthat there is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the proposed decision;\nthat the making of the proposed decision would be otherwise contrary to law.\nThis section applies only to conduct engaged in, or proposed to be engaged in, after the commencement of this Act.\n(sec.21-ssec.1) If a person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in conduct for the purpose of making a decision to which this Act applies (whether by the person engaging in the conduct or by another person), a person who is aggrieved by the conduct may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the conduct.\n(sec.21-ssec.2) The application may be made on any 1 or more of the following grounds— that a breach of the rules of natural justice has happened, is happening, or is likely to happen, in relation to the conduct; that procedures that are required by law to be observed in relation to the conduct have not been, are not being, or are likely not to be, observed; that the person proposing to make the decision does not have jurisdiction to make the proposed decision; that the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made does not authorise the making of the proposed decision; that the making of the proposed decision would be an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made; that an error of law— has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed in the course of the conduct; or is likely to be committed in the making of the proposed decision; that fraud has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place, in the course of the conduct; that there is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the proposed decision; that the making of the proposed decision would be otherwise contrary to law.\n(sec.21-ssec.3) This section applies only to conduct engaged in, or proposed to be engaged in, after the commencement of this Act.\n- (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice has happened, is happening, or is likely to happen, in relation to the conduct;\n- (b) that procedures that are required by law to be observed in relation to the conduct have not been, are not being, or are likely not to be, observed;\n- (c) that the person proposing to make the decision does not have jurisdiction to make the proposed decision;\n- (d) that the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made does not authorise the making of the proposed decision;\n- (e) that the making of the proposed decision would be an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which the decision is proposed to be made;\n- (f) that an error of law— (i) has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed in the course of the conduct; or (ii) is likely to be committed in the making of the proposed decision;\n- (i) has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed in the course of the conduct; or\n- (ii) is likely to be committed in the making of the proposed decision;\n- (g) that fraud has taken place, is taking place, or is likely to take place, in the course of the conduct;\n- (h) that there is no evidence or other material to justify the making of the proposed decision;\n- (i) that the making of the proposed decision would be otherwise contrary to law.\n- (i) has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed in the course of the conduct; or\n- (ii) is likely to be committed in the making of the proposed decision;","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"sec.22","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application in relation to failure to make decision","content":"### sec.22 Application in relation to failure to make decision\n\nIf—\na person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and\nthere is no law that fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and\nthe person has failed to make the decision;\na person who is aggrieved by the failure of the person to make the decision may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the failure to make the decision on the ground that there has been unreasonable delay in making the decision.\nIf—\na person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and\na law fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and\nthe person failed to make the decision before the end of the period;\na person who is aggrieved by the failure of the person to make the decision within the period may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the failure to make the decision within the period on the ground that the person has a duty to make the decision despite the end of the period.\nThis section applies only to a decision required to be made after the commencement of this Act.\n(sec.22-ssec.1) If— a person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and there is no law that fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and the person has failed to make the decision; a person who is aggrieved by the failure of the person to make the decision may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the failure to make the decision on the ground that there has been unreasonable delay in making the decision.\n(sec.22-ssec.2) If— a person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and a law fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and the person failed to make the decision before the end of the period; a person who is aggrieved by the failure of the person to make the decision within the period may apply to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to the failure to make the decision within the period on the ground that the person has a duty to make the decision despite the end of the period.\n(sec.22-ssec.3) This section applies only to a decision required to be made after the commencement of this Act.\n- (a) a person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and\n- (b) there is no law that fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and\n- (c) the person has failed to make the decision;\n- (a) a person has a duty to make a decision to which this Act applies; and\n- (b) a law fixes a period within which the person is required to make the decision; and\n- (c) the person failed to make the decision before the end of the period;","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"sec.23","sectionType":"section","heading":"Meaning of improper exercise of power (ss 20(2)(e) and 21(2)(e))","content":"### sec.23 Meaning of improper exercise of power (ss 20(2)(e) and 21(2)(e))\n\nIn sections 20 (2) (e) and 21 (2) (e) , a reference to an improper exercise of a power includes a reference to—\ntaking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and\nfailing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and\nan exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred; and\nan exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith; and\nan exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person; and\nan exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case; and\nan exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power; and\nan exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and\nany other exercise of a power in a way that is an abuse of the power.\n- (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and\n- (b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power; and\n- (c) an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred; and\n- (d) an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith; and\n- (e) an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person; and\n- (f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case; and\n- (g) an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power; and\n- (h) an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and\n- (i) any other exercise of a power in a way that is an abuse of the power.","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"sec.24","sectionType":"section","heading":"Decisions without justification—establishing ground (ss 20(2)(h) and 21(2)(h))","content":"### sec.24 Decisions without justification—establishing ground (ss 20(2)(h) and 21(2)(h))\n\nThe ground mentioned in sections 20 (2) (h) and 21 (2) (h) is not to be taken to be made out—\nunless—\nthe person who made, or proposed to make, the decision was required by law to reach the decision only if a particular matter was or is established; and\nthere was no evidence or other material (including facts of which the person was or is entitled to take notice) from which the person could or can reasonably be satisfied that the matter was or is established; or\nunless—\nthe person who made, or proposes to make, the decision based, or proposes to base, the decision on the existence of a particular fact; and\nthe fact did not or does not exist.\n- (a) unless— (i) the person who made, or proposed to make, the decision was required by law to reach the decision only if a particular matter was or is established; and (ii) there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which the person was or is entitled to take notice) from which the person could or can reasonably be satisfied that the matter was or is established; or\n- (i) the person who made, or proposed to make, the decision was required by law to reach the decision only if a particular matter was or is established; and\n- (ii) there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which the person was or is entitled to take notice) from which the person could or can reasonably be satisfied that the matter was or is established; or\n- (b) unless— (i) the person who made, or proposes to make, the decision based, or proposes to base, the decision on the existence of a particular fact; and (ii) the fact did not or does not exist.\n- (i) the person who made, or proposes to make, the decision based, or proposes to base, the decision on the existence of a particular fact; and\n- (ii) the fact did not or does not exist.\n- (i) the person who made, or proposed to make, the decision was required by law to reach the decision only if a particular matter was or is established; and\n- (ii) there was no evidence or other material (including facts of which the person was or is entitled to take notice) from which the person could or can reasonably be satisfied that the matter was or is established; or\n- (i) the person who made, or proposes to make, the decision based, or proposes to base, the decision on the existence of a particular fact; and\n- (ii) the fact did not or does not exist.","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"sec.25","sectionType":"section","heading":"Way of making application","content":"### sec.25 Way of making application\n\nAn application for a statutory order of review must—\nbe made in the way prescribed by rules of court; and\nset out the grounds of the application; and\nbe lodged with a registry of the court.\n- (a) be made in the way prescribed by rules of court; and\n- (b) set out the grounds of the application; and\n- (c) be lodged with a registry of the court.","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26","sectionType":"section","heading":"Period within which application must be made","content":"### sec.26 Period within which application must be made\n\nAn application to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to a decision that has been made and the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the applicant (including a decision that a person purported to make after the end of the period within which it was required to be made) must be made within—\nthe period required by subsection (2) ; or\nsuch further time as the court (whether before or after the end of that required period) allows.\nThe period within which an application for a statutory order of review is required to be made is the period beginning on the day on which the decision is made and ending 28 days after the relevant day.\nIf—\nthere is not a period prescribed for the making of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision; or\nthere is not a period prescribed for the making of an application by a particular person for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision;\nthe court may take the following action if it is of the opinion that the application was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made—\nif paragraph (a) applies—refuse to consider an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision;\nif paragraph (b) applies—refuse to consider an application by the person for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision.\nIn forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (3) , the Court—\nmust have regard to—\nthe time when the applicant became aware of the decision; and\nif subsection (3) (b) applies—the period prescribed for the making by another person of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; and\nmay have regard to such other matters as it considers relevant.\nIn subsection (2) —\nrelevant day means—\nif the decision includes, or is accompanied by a statement giving, the reasons for the decision—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant; or\nif paragraph (a) does not apply and a written statement giving the reasons for the decision is given to the applicant (otherwise than because of a request under section 32 ) not later than 28 days after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant—the day on which the statement is given; or\nif paragraph (a) does not apply and the applicant requests the person who made the decision to give a statement under section 32 —the day on which—\nthe statement is given; or\nthe applicant is notified under section 33 (2) that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\nthe applicant is notified under section 33 (5) or 37 that the statement will not be given; or\nthe court makes an order under section 39 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\nin any other case—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant.\n(sec.26-ssec.1) An application to the court for a statutory order of review in relation to a decision that has been made and the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the applicant (including a decision that a person purported to make after the end of the period within which it was required to be made) must be made within— the period required by subsection (2) ; or such further time as the court (whether before or after the end of that required period) allows.\n(sec.26-ssec.2) The period within which an application for a statutory order of review is required to be made is the period beginning on the day on which the decision is made and ending 28 days after the relevant day.\n(sec.26-ssec.3) If— there is not a period prescribed for the making of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision; or there is not a period prescribed for the making of an application by a particular person for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision; the court may take the following action if it is of the opinion that the application was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made— if paragraph (a) applies—refuse to consider an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; if paragraph (b) applies—refuse to consider an application by the person for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision.\n(sec.26-ssec.4) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (3) , the Court— must have regard to— the time when the applicant became aware of the decision; and if subsection (3) (b) applies—the period prescribed for the making by another person of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; and may have regard to such other matters as it considers relevant.\n(sec.26-ssec.5) In subsection (2) — relevant day means— if the decision includes, or is accompanied by a statement giving, the reasons for the decision—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant; or if paragraph (a) does not apply and a written statement giving the reasons for the decision is given to the applicant (otherwise than because of a request under section 32 ) not later than 28 days after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant—the day on which the statement is given; or if paragraph (a) does not apply and the applicant requests the person who made the decision to give a statement under section 32 —the day on which— the statement is given; or the applicant is notified under section 33 (2) that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or the applicant is notified under section 33 (5) or 37 that the statement will not be given; or the court makes an order under section 39 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or in any other case—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant.\n- (a) the period required by subsection (2) ; or\n- (b) such further time as the court (whether before or after the end of that required period) allows.\n- (a) there is not a period prescribed for the making of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision; or\n- (b) there is not a period prescribed for the making of an application by a particular person for a statutory order of review in relation to a particular decision;\n- (c) if paragraph (a) applies—refuse to consider an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision;\n- (d) if paragraph (b) applies—refuse to consider an application by the person for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision.\n- (a) must have regard to— (i) the time when the applicant became aware of the decision; and (ii) if subsection (3) (b) applies—the period prescribed for the making by another person of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; and\n- (i) the time when the applicant became aware of the decision; and\n- (ii) if subsection (3) (b) applies—the period prescribed for the making by another person of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; and\n- (b) may have regard to such other matters as it considers relevant.\n- (i) the time when the applicant became aware of the decision; and\n- (ii) if subsection (3) (b) applies—the period prescribed for the making by another person of an application for a statutory order of review in relation to the decision; and\n- (a) if the decision includes, or is accompanied by a statement giving, the reasons for the decision—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant; or\n- (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and a written statement giving the reasons for the decision is given to the applicant (otherwise than because of a request under section 32 ) not later than 28 days after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant—the day on which the statement is given; or\n- (c) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the applicant requests the person who made the decision to give a statement under section 32 —the day on which— (i) the statement is given; or (ii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (2) that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or (iii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (5) or 37 that the statement will not be given; or (iv) the court makes an order under section 39 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\n- (i) the statement is given; or\n- (ii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (2) that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\n- (iii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (5) or 37 that the statement will not be given; or\n- (iv) the court makes an order under section 39 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\n- (d) in any other case—the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision is given to the applicant.\n- (i) the statement is given; or\n- (ii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (2) that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or\n- (iii) the applicant is notified under section 33 (5) or 37 that the statement will not be given; or\n- (iv) the court makes an order under section 39 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to make the request; or","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"sec.27","sectionType":"section","heading":"Applicant not limited to grounds in application","content":"### sec.27 Applicant not limited to grounds in application\n\nThe applicant for a statutory order of review is not limited to the grounds set out in the application but, if the applicant wishes to rely on a ground not set out in the application, the court may direct that the application be amended to specify the ground.","sortOrder":36},{"sectionNumber":"sec.28","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application to be made party to proceeding","content":"### sec.28 Application to be made party to proceeding\n\nIf—\na person is interested in—\na decision; or\nconduct (including conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision); or\na failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law; and\nan application has been made to the court under this Act in relation to the decision, conduct or failure;\nthe person may apply to the court to be made a party to the application.\nThe court may grant or refuse the application.\n(sec.28-ssec.1) If— a person is interested in— a decision; or conduct (including conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision); or a failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law; and an application has been made to the court under this Act in relation to the decision, conduct or failure; the person may apply to the court to be made a party to the application.\n(sec.28-ssec.2) The court may grant or refuse the application.\n- (a) a person is interested in— (i) a decision; or (ii) conduct (including conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision); or (iii) a failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law; and\n- (i) a decision; or\n- (ii) conduct (including conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision); or\n- (iii) a failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law; and\n- (b) an application has been made to the court under this Act in relation to the decision, conduct or failure;\n- (i) a decision; or\n- (ii) conduct (including conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of making a decision); or\n- (iii) a failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law; and","sortOrder":37},{"sectionNumber":"sec.29","sectionType":"section","heading":"Stay of decision","content":"### sec.29 Stay of decision\n\nThe making of an application to the court under section 20 in relation to a decision does not—\naffect the operation of the decision; or\nprevent the taking of action to implement the decision.\nDespite subsection (1) , the court or a judge—\nmay, by order, suspend the operation of the decision; and\nmay order a stay of any proceeding under the decision.\nThe court or judge may make the order—\nof the court’s or judge’s own motion; or\non the application of the person who made the application.\n(sec.29-ssec.1) The making of an application to the court under section 20 in relation to a decision does not— affect the operation of the decision; or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.\n(sec.29-ssec.2) Despite subsection (1) , the court or a judge— may, by order, suspend the operation of the decision; and may order a stay of any proceeding under the decision.\n(sec.29-ssec.3) The court or judge may make the order— of the court’s or judge’s own motion; or on the application of the person who made the application.\n- (a) affect the operation of the decision; or\n- (b) prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.\n- (a) may, by order, suspend the operation of the decision; and\n- (b) may order a stay of any proceeding under the decision.\n- (a) of the court’s or judge’s own motion; or\n- (b) on the application of the person who made the application.","sortOrder":38},{"sectionNumber":"sec.30","sectionType":"section","heading":"Powers of the court in relation to applications for order of review","content":"### sec.30 Powers of the court in relation to applications for order of review\n\nOn an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a decision, the court may make all or any of the following orders—\nan order quashing or setting aside the decision, or a part of the decision, with effect from—\nthe day of the making of the order; or\nif the court specifies the day of effect—the day specified by the court (which may be before or after the day of the making of the order);\nan order referring the matter to which the decision relates to the person who made the decision for further consideration, subject to such directions (including the setting of time limits for the further consideration, and for preparatory steps in the further consideration) as the court determines;\nan order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the decision relates;\nan order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\nOn an application for a statutory order of review in relation to conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of the making of a decision, the court may make either or both of the following orders—\nan order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the conduct relates;\nan order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\nOn an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a failure to make a decision, or in relation to a failure to make a decision within the period within which the decision was required to be made, the court may make all or any of the following orders—\nan order directing the making of the decision;\nan order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to the making of the decision;\nan order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\nThe court may, at any time, of its own motion or on the application of a party, revoke, vary, or suspend the operation of, an order made by it under this section.\n(sec.30-ssec.1) On an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a decision, the court may make all or any of the following orders— an order quashing or setting aside the decision, or a part of the decision, with effect from— the day of the making of the order; or if the court specifies the day of effect—the day specified by the court (which may be before or after the day of the making of the order); an order referring the matter to which the decision relates to the person who made the decision for further consideration, subject to such directions (including the setting of time limits for the further consideration, and for preparatory steps in the further consideration) as the court determines; an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the decision relates; an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\n(sec.30-ssec.2) On an application for a statutory order of review in relation to conduct that has been, is being, or is proposed to be, engaged in for the purpose of the making of a decision, the court may make either or both of the following orders— an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the conduct relates; an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\n(sec.30-ssec.3) On an application for a statutory order of review in relation to a failure to make a decision, or in relation to a failure to make a decision within the period within which the decision was required to be made, the court may make all or any of the following orders— an order directing the making of the decision; an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to the making of the decision; an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\n(sec.30-ssec.4) The court may, at any time, of its own motion or on the application of a party, revoke, vary, or suspend the operation of, an order made by it under this section.\n- (a) an order quashing or setting aside the decision, or a part of the decision, with effect from— (i) the day of the making of the order; or (ii) if the court specifies the day of effect—the day specified by the court (which may be before or after the day of the making of the order);\n- (i) the day of the making of the order; or\n- (ii) if the court specifies the day of effect—the day specified by the court (which may be before or after the day of the making of the order);\n- (b) an order referring the matter to which the decision relates to the person who made the decision for further consideration, subject to such directions (including the setting of time limits for the further consideration, and for preparatory steps in the further consideration) as the court determines;\n- (c) an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the decision relates;\n- (d) an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\n- (i) the day of the making of the order; or\n- (ii) if the court specifies the day of effect—the day specified by the court (which may be before or after the day of the making of the order);\n- (a) an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the conduct relates;\n- (b) an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.\n- (a) an order directing the making of the decision;\n- (b) an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to the making of the decision;\n- (c) an order directing any of the parties to do, or to refrain from doing, anything that the court considers necessary to do justice between the parties.","sortOrder":39},{"sectionNumber":"pt.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Reasons for decision","content":"# Reasons for decision","sortOrder":40},{"sectionNumber":"sec.31","sectionType":"section","heading":"Decision to which part applies","content":"### sec.31 Decision to which part applies\n\nIn this part—\ndecision to which this part applies means a decision that is a decision to which this Act applies, but does not include—\na decision that includes, or is accompanied by a statement, giving the reasons for the decision; or\na decision included in a class of decisions set out in schedule 2 .\n- (a) a decision that includes, or is accompanied by a statement, giving the reasons for the decision; or\n- (b) a decision included in a class of decisions set out in schedule 2 .","sortOrder":41},{"sectionNumber":"sec.32","sectionType":"section","heading":"Request for statement of reasons","content":"### sec.32 Request for statement of reasons\n\nIf a person makes a decision to which this part applies, a person who is entitled to make an application to the court under section 20 in relation to the decision may request the person to provide a written statement in relation to the decision.\nThe request must be made by written notice given to—\nif the decision was made by the Governor in Council or by Cabinet—the Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or\nin any other case—the person who made the decision.\n(sec.32-ssec.1) If a person makes a decision to which this part applies, a person who is entitled to make an application to the court under section 20 in relation to the decision may request the person to provide a written statement in relation to the decision.\n(sec.32-ssec.2) The request must be made by written notice given to— if the decision was made by the Governor in Council or by Cabinet—the Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or in any other case—the person who made the decision.\n- (a) if the decision was made by the Governor in Council or by Cabinet—the Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or\n- (b) in any other case—the person who made the decision.","sortOrder":42},{"sectionNumber":"sec.33","sectionType":"section","heading":"Decision-maker must comply with request except in certain circumstances","content":"### sec.33 Decision-maker must comply with request except in certain circumstances\n\nSubject to this section, a person to whom a request is made under section 32 (the decision-maker ) must, as soon as practicable, and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request, provide the statement to the person who made the request (the requester ).\nIf the decision-maker is of the opinion that the requester was not entitled to make the request, the decision-maker may, within 28 days after receiving the request—\ngive to the requester written notice of the decision-maker’s opinion; or\napply to the Court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request.\nIf the decision-maker gives a notice under subsection (2) or applies to the court under section 39 , the decision-maker is not required to comply with the request unless—\nthe court, on an application under section 38 , orders the decision-maker to give the statement; or\nthe decision-maker has applied to the court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request and the court refuses the application.\nThe decision-maker may refuse to prepare and give the statement if—\nin the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the requester—the relevant request was not made within 28 days after the day on which the document was given; or\nin any other case—the relevant request was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made.\nIf subsection (4) (a) or (b) applies to the decision-maker, the decision-maker must give to the requester, within 14 days after receiving the relevant request, written notice stating—\nthat the statement will not be given to the requester; and\nthe reasons why it will not be given.\nFor the purposes of subsection (4) (b) , a request for a statement in relation to a decision is taken to have been made within a reasonable time after the decision was made if the court, on application by the requester, declares that the request was made within a reasonable time after the decision was made.\ns 33 amd 1992 No. 36 s 2 sch 2\n(sec.33-ssec.1) Subject to this section, a person to whom a request is made under section 32 (the decision-maker ) must, as soon as practicable, and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request, provide the statement to the person who made the request (the requester ).\n(sec.33-ssec.2) If the decision-maker is of the opinion that the requester was not entitled to make the request, the decision-maker may, within 28 days after receiving the request— give to the requester written notice of the decision-maker’s opinion; or apply to the Court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request.\n(sec.33-ssec.3) If the decision-maker gives a notice under subsection (2) or applies to the court under section 39 , the decision-maker is not required to comply with the request unless— the court, on an application under section 38 , orders the decision-maker to give the statement; or the decision-maker has applied to the court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request and the court refuses the application.\n(sec.33-ssec.4) The decision-maker may refuse to prepare and give the statement if— in the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the requester—the relevant request was not made within 28 days after the day on which the document was given; or in any other case—the relevant request was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made.\n(sec.33-ssec.5) If subsection (4) (a) or (b) applies to the decision-maker, the decision-maker must give to the requester, within 14 days after receiving the relevant request, written notice stating— that the statement will not be given to the requester; and the reasons why it will not be given.\n(sec.33-ssec.6) For the purposes of subsection (4) (b) , a request for a statement in relation to a decision is taken to have been made within a reasonable time after the decision was made if the court, on application by the requester, declares that the request was made within a reasonable time after the decision was made.\n- (a) give to the requester written notice of the decision-maker’s opinion; or\n- (b) apply to the Court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request.\n- (a) the court, on an application under section 38 , orders the decision-maker to give the statement; or\n- (b) the decision-maker has applied to the court under section 39 for an order declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request and the court refuses the application.\n- (a) in the case of a decision the terms of which were recorded in writing and set out in a document that was given to the requester—the relevant request was not made within 28 days after the day on which the document was given; or\n- (b) in any other case—the relevant request was not made within a reasonable time after the decision was made.\n- (a) that the statement will not be given to the requester; and\n- (b) the reasons why it will not be given.","sortOrder":43},{"sectionNumber":"sec.34","sectionType":"section","heading":"Content of statement","content":"### sec.34 Content of statement\n\nThe statement must contain the reasons for the decision.\ns 34 sub 1992 No. 68 s 3 sch 1","sortOrder":44},{"sectionNumber":"sec.35","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exception for information relating to personal or business affairs","content":"### sec.35 Exception for information relating to personal or business affairs\n\nThis section applies to information to which a request made to a person under section 32 relates if the information—\nrelates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request; and\nis of a confidential nature.\nFor the purposes of subsection (1) , information is taken to be of a confidential nature if the information is information—\nthat was supplied in confidence and continues to retain its confidential character; or\nthe publication of which would reveal a trade secret; or\nthe publication of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, adversely affect a State authority or local government authority in relation to its competitive commercial activities; or\nthat was given under a duty imposed by an enactment; or\nthe giving of which under the request would be in contravention of an enactment that expressly imposes on the person to whom the request is made a duty not to divulge or communicate information of that kind—\nto a person; or\nto a person, other than a person included in a class of persons prescribed by regulation; or\nexcept in circumstances prescribed by regulation.\nSection 37 specifies the consequences of this section applying to information.\n(sec.35-ssec.1) This section applies to information to which a request made to a person under section 32 relates if the information— relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request; and is of a confidential nature.\n(sec.35-ssec.2) For the purposes of subsection (1) , information is taken to be of a confidential nature if the information is information— that was supplied in confidence and continues to retain its confidential character; or the publication of which would reveal a trade secret; or the publication of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, adversely affect a State authority or local government authority in relation to its competitive commercial activities; or that was given under a duty imposed by an enactment; or the giving of which under the request would be in contravention of an enactment that expressly imposes on the person to whom the request is made a duty not to divulge or communicate information of that kind— to a person; or to a person, other than a person included in a class of persons prescribed by regulation; or except in circumstances prescribed by regulation.\n(sec.35-ssec.3) Section 37 specifies the consequences of this section applying to information.\n- (a) relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request; and\n- (b) is of a confidential nature.\n- (a) that was supplied in confidence and continues to retain its confidential character; or\n- (b) the publication of which would reveal a trade secret; or\n- (c) the publication of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, adversely affect a State authority or local government authority in relation to its competitive commercial activities; or\n- (d) that was given under a duty imposed by an enactment; or\n- (e) the giving of which under the request would be in contravention of an enactment that expressly imposes on the person to whom the request is made a duty not to divulge or communicate information of that kind— (i) to a person; or (ii) to a person, other than a person included in a class of persons prescribed by regulation; or (iii) except in circumstances prescribed by regulation.\n- (i) to a person; or\n- (ii) to a person, other than a person included in a class of persons prescribed by regulation; or\n- (iii) except in circumstances prescribed by regulation.\n- (i) to a person; or\n- (ii) to a person, other than a person included in a class of persons prescribed by regulation; or\n- (iii) except in circumstances prescribed by regulation.","sortOrder":45},{"sectionNumber":"sec.36","sectionType":"section","heading":"Exception for information covered by Attorney-General’s certificate","content":"### sec.36 Exception for information covered by Attorney-General’s certificate\n\nThis section applies to information relating to a matter if the Attorney-General certifies, by signed writing, that the disclosure of information relating to the matter would be contrary to the public interest—\nbecause it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or a decision of Cabinet or a Committee of Cabinet; or\nfor any other specified reason that could form the basis for a claim in a judicial proceeding that the information should not be disclosed.\nSection 37 specifies the consequences of this section applying to information.\n(sec.36-ssec.1) This section applies to information relating to a matter if the Attorney-General certifies, by signed writing, that the disclosure of information relating to the matter would be contrary to the public interest— because it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or a decision of Cabinet or a Committee of Cabinet; or for any other specified reason that could form the basis for a claim in a judicial proceeding that the information should not be disclosed.\n(sec.36-ssec.2) Section 37 specifies the consequences of this section applying to information.\n- (a) because it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or a decision of Cabinet or a Committee of Cabinet; or\n- (b) for any other specified reason that could form the basis for a claim in a judicial proceeding that the information should not be disclosed.","sortOrder":46},{"sectionNumber":"sec.37","sectionType":"section","heading":"Consequences of s 35 or 36 applying to information","content":"### sec.37 Consequences of s 35 or 36 applying to information\n\nIf a person has been requested under section 32 to give a statement to a person—\nthe person to whom the request is made is not required to include in the statement any information in relation to which section 35 or 36 applies; and\nif the statement would be false or misleading if it did not include the information—the person is not required to give the statement.\nIf, because of subsection (1) —\ninformation is not included in a statement given by a person; or\na statement is not given by a person;\nthe person must give written notice relating to the request to the person who made the request.\nThe notice must state—\nif subsection (1) (a) applies—\nthat the information is not included; and\nthe reason for not including the information; and\nif subsection (1) (b) applies—\nthat the statement will not be given; and\nthe reason for not giving the statement.\nThe notice must be given—\nif subsection (1) (a) applies—at the time the statement is given; or\nif subsection (1) (b) applies—as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request.\nNothing in this section affects the power of the court—\nto make an order for the discovery of documents; or\nto require the giving of evidence or the production of documents to the court.\n(sec.37-ssec.1) If a person has been requested under section 32 to give a statement to a person— the person to whom the request is made is not required to include in the statement any information in relation to which section 35 or 36 applies; and if the statement would be false or misleading if it did not include the information—the person is not required to give the statement.\n(sec.37-ssec.2) If, because of subsection (1) — information is not included in a statement given by a person; or a statement is not given by a person; the person must give written notice relating to the request to the person who made the request.\n(sec.37-ssec.3) The notice must state— if subsection (1) (a) applies— that the information is not included; and the reason for not including the information; and if subsection (1) (b) applies— that the statement will not be given; and the reason for not giving the statement.\n(sec.37-ssec.4) The notice must be given— if subsection (1) (a) applies—at the time the statement is given; or if subsection (1) (b) applies—as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request.\n(sec.37-ssec.5) Nothing in this section affects the power of the court— to make an order for the discovery of documents; or to require the giving of evidence or the production of documents to the court.\n- (a) the person to whom the request is made is not required to include in the statement any information in relation to which section 35 or 36 applies; and\n- (b) if the statement would be false or misleading if it did not include the information—the person is not required to give the statement.\n- (a) information is not included in a statement given by a person; or\n- (b) a statement is not given by a person;\n- (a) if subsection (1) (a) applies— (i) that the information is not included; and (ii) the reason for not including the information; and\n- (i) that the information is not included; and\n- (ii) the reason for not including the information; and\n- (b) if subsection (1) (b) applies— (i) that the statement will not be given; and (ii) the reason for not giving the statement.\n- (i) that the statement will not be given; and\n- (ii) the reason for not giving the statement.\n- (i) that the information is not included; and\n- (ii) the reason for not including the information; and\n- (i) that the statement will not be given; and\n- (ii) the reason for not giving the statement.\n- (a) if subsection (1) (a) applies—at the time the statement is given; or\n- (b) if subsection (1) (b) applies—as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request.\n- (a) to make an order for the discovery of documents; or\n- (b) to require the giving of evidence or the production of documents to the court.","sortOrder":47},{"sectionNumber":"sec.38","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for order to comply","content":"### sec.38 Application for order to comply\n\nIf—\na person (the requester ) makes a request under section 32 to a person (the decision-maker ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and\nthe decision-maker does not comply with the request, or apply to the court under section 39 in relation to the request, within 28 days after receiving the request;\nthe requester may apply to the court for an order under this section.\nIf the court considers that the requester was entitled to make the request, the court may order the decision-maker to give the statement within a specified period.\n(sec.38-ssec.1) If— a person (the requester ) makes a request under section 32 to a person (the decision-maker ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and the decision-maker does not comply with the request, or apply to the court under section 39 in relation to the request, within 28 days after receiving the request; the requester may apply to the court for an order under this section.\n(sec.38-ssec.2) If the court considers that the requester was entitled to make the request, the court may order the decision-maker to give the statement within a specified period.\n- (a) a person (the requester ) makes a request under section 32 to a person (the decision-maker ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and\n- (b) the decision-maker does not comply with the request, or apply to the court under section 39 in relation to the request, within 28 days after receiving the request;","sortOrder":48},{"sectionNumber":"sec.39","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for order that person not entitled to statement","content":"### sec.39 Application for order that person not entitled to statement\n\nIf—\na person (the decision-maker ) receives a request under section 32 from a person (the requester ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and\nthe decision-maker is of the opinion that the requester is not entitled to make the request;\nthe decision-maker may apply to the court for an order under this section declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request.\nIf the court considers that the requester was not entitled to make the request, the court may, by order, declare accordingly, but otherwise the court must refuse the application.\nIf the court refuses the application, the decision-maker must—\nprepare the statement to which the request relates; and\ngive it to the requester within 28 days after the court’s decision.\n(sec.39-ssec.1) If— a person (the decision-maker ) receives a request under section 32 from a person (the requester ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and the decision-maker is of the opinion that the requester is not entitled to make the request; the decision-maker may apply to the court for an order under this section declaring that the requester was not entitled to make the request.\n(sec.39-ssec.2) If the court considers that the requester was not entitled to make the request, the court may, by order, declare accordingly, but otherwise the court must refuse the application.\n(sec.39-ssec.3) If the court refuses the application, the decision-maker must— prepare the statement to which the request relates; and give it to the requester within 28 days after the court’s decision.\n- (a) a person (the decision-maker ) receives a request under section 32 from a person (the requester ) for a written statement in relation to a decision; and\n- (b) the decision-maker is of the opinion that the requester is not entitled to make the request;\n- (a) prepare the statement to which the request relates; and\n- (b) give it to the requester within 28 days after the court’s decision.","sortOrder":49},{"sectionNumber":"sec.40","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for further statement","content":"### sec.40 Application for further statement\n\nA person to whom a statement has been given under section 33 (the requester ) may apply to the court for an order under this section against the person who gave the statement (the decision-maker ).\nIf the court considers that the statement does not contain adequate particulars of the reasons for the decision, the court may order the decision-maker to give to the requester, within a specified period, an additional statement containing further and better particulars in relation to specified matters or a further statement under section 33 .\n(sec.40-ssec.1) A person to whom a statement has been given under section 33 (the requester ) may apply to the court for an order under this section against the person who gave the statement (the decision-maker ).\n(sec.40-ssec.2) If the court considers that the statement does not contain adequate particulars of the reasons for the decision, the court may order the decision-maker to give to the requester, within a specified period, an additional statement containing further and better particulars in relation to specified matters or a further statement under section 33 .","sortOrder":50},{"sectionNumber":"pt.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Prerogative orders and injunctions","content":"# Prerogative orders and injunctions","sortOrder":51},{"sectionNumber":"sec.41","sectionType":"section","heading":"Certain prerogative writs not to be issued","content":"### sec.41 Certain prerogative writs not to be issued\n\nThe prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari are no longer to be issued by the Court.\nIf, before the commencement of this Act, the court had jurisdiction to grant any relief or remedy by way of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the court continues to have the jurisdiction to grant the relief or remedy, but must grant the relief or remedy by making an order, the relief or remedy under which is in the nature of, and to the same effect as, the relief or remedy that could, but for subsection (1) , have been granted by way of such a writ.\nIn an enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, a reference to a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari is taken to be a reference to an order of a kind that the court is empowered to make under this section.\n(sec.41-ssec.1) The prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari are no longer to be issued by the Court.\n(sec.41-ssec.2) If, before the commencement of this Act, the court had jurisdiction to grant any relief or remedy by way of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the court continues to have the jurisdiction to grant the relief or remedy, but must grant the relief or remedy by making an order, the relief or remedy under which is in the nature of, and to the same effect as, the relief or remedy that could, but for subsection (1) , have been granted by way of such a writ.\n(sec.41-ssec.3) In an enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, a reference to a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari is taken to be a reference to an order of a kind that the court is empowered to make under this section.","sortOrder":52},{"sectionNumber":"sec.42","sectionType":"section","heading":"Abolition of quo warranto","content":"### sec.42 Abolition of quo warranto\n\nInformations in the nature of quo warranto are abolished.\nIf—\na person acts in an office in which the person is not entitled to act; and\nan information in the nature of quo warranto would, but for subsection (1) , lie against the person;\nthe court may—\ngrant an injunction restraining the person from acting in the office; and\ndeclare the office to be vacant.\nIn an enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, a reference to an information in the nature of quo warranto is taken to be a reference to an injunction of the kind that the court is empowered to grant under this section.\n(sec.42-ssec.1) Informations in the nature of quo warranto are abolished.\n(sec.42-ssec.2) If— a person acts in an office in which the person is not entitled to act; and an information in the nature of quo warranto would, but for subsection (1) , lie against the person; the court may— grant an injunction restraining the person from acting in the office; and declare the office to be vacant.\n(sec.42-ssec.3) In an enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, a reference to an information in the nature of quo warranto is taken to be a reference to an injunction of the kind that the court is empowered to grant under this section.\n- (a) a person acts in an office in which the person is not entitled to act; and\n- (b) an information in the nature of quo warranto would, but for subsection (1) , lie against the person;\n- (c) grant an injunction restraining the person from acting in the office; and\n- (d) declare the office to be vacant.","sortOrder":53},{"sectionNumber":"sec.43","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application for review","content":"### sec.43 Application for review\n\nAn application for—\na prerogative order; or\na prerogative injunction;\nmust be made by way of an application for review.\nAn application for a declaration or injunction (other than a prerogative injunction)—\nmay be made by way of an application for review if it would be appropriate to do so having regard to—\nthe nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be sought; or\nthe nature of the persons against whom relief may be sought;\nin an application for a prerogative order or prerogative injunction; and\nmay be made by way of an application for review, whether or not a prerogative order or prerogative injunction is sought in the application.\nIf—\nan application for a declaration or injunction (other than a prerogative injunction) is made under subsection (2) ; and\nthe court considers—\nthat the relief sought should not be granted on an application for review; and\nthat the relief may have been granted if it had been sought in an action begun by writ of summons or originating summons by the applicant at the time of starting the application for review;\nthe court may, instead of refusing the application, order the proceeding to continue as if it had been begun in the way mentioned in paragraph (b) (ii) .\n(sec.43-ssec.1) An application for— a prerogative order; or a prerogative injunction; must be made by way of an application for review.\n(sec.43-ssec.2) An application for a declaration or injunction (other than a prerogative injunction)— may be made by way of an application for review if it would be appropriate to do so having regard to— the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be sought; or the nature of the persons against whom relief may be sought; in an application for a prerogative order or prerogative injunction; and may be made by way of an application for review, whether or not a prerogative order or prerogative injunction is sought in the application.\n(sec.43-ssec.3) If— an application for a declaration or injunction (other than a prerogative injunction) is made under subsection (2) ; and the court considers— that the relief sought should not be granted on an application for review; and that the relief may have been granted if it had been sought in an action begun by writ of summons or originating summons by the applicant at the time of starting the application for review; the court may, instead of refusing the application, order the proceeding to continue as if it had been begun in the way mentioned in paragraph (b) (ii) .\n- (a) a prerogative order; or\n- (b) a prerogative injunction;\n- (a) may be made by way of an application for review if it would be appropriate to do so having regard to— (i) the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be sought; or (ii) the nature of the persons against whom relief may be sought; in an application for a prerogative order or prerogative injunction; and\n- (i) the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be sought; or\n- (ii) the nature of the persons against whom relief may be sought;\n- (b) may be made by way of an application for review, whether or not a prerogative order or prerogative injunction is sought in the application.\n- (i) the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be sought; or\n- (ii) the nature of the persons against whom relief may be sought;\n- (a) an application for a declaration or injunction (other than a prerogative injunction) is made under subsection (2) ; and\n- (b) the court considers— (i) that the relief sought should not be granted on an application for review; and (ii) that the relief may have been granted if it had been sought in an action begun by writ of summons or originating summons by the applicant at the time of starting the application for review;\n- (i) that the relief sought should not be granted on an application for review; and\n- (ii) that the relief may have been granted if it had been sought in an action begun by writ of summons or originating summons by the applicant at the time of starting the application for review;\n- (i) that the relief sought should not be granted on an application for review; and\n- (ii) that the relief may have been granted if it had been sought in an action begun by writ of summons or originating summons by the applicant at the time of starting the application for review;","sortOrder":54},{"sectionNumber":"sec.44","sectionType":"section","heading":"Who may make application","content":"### sec.44 Who may make application\n\nA person is entitled to make an application for review if the person’s interests are, or would be, adversely affected in or by the matter to which the application relates.","sortOrder":55},{"sectionNumber":"sec.45","sectionType":"section","heading":"Way of making application","content":"### sec.45 Way of making application\n\nAn application for review must—\nbe made in the way prescribed by rules of court; and\nset out the grounds of the application; and\nbe lodged with a registry of the court.\n- (a) be made in the way prescribed by rules of court; and\n- (b) set out the grounds of the application; and\n- (c) be lodged with a registry of the court.","sortOrder":56},{"sectionNumber":"sec.46","sectionType":"section","heading":"Time of making application","content":"### sec.46 Time of making application\n\nSubject to any other enactment, an application for review must be made—\nas soon as possible and, in any event, within 3 months after the day on which the grounds for the application arose; or\nif the court extends the period of 3 months—before the end of the extended period.\nIf the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order in relation to any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the day on which the grounds for the application arose is, for the purposes of subsection (1) , taken to be the day of the making of the judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding.\n(sec.46-ssec.1) Subject to any other enactment, an application for review must be made— as soon as possible and, in any event, within 3 months after the day on which the grounds for the application arose; or if the court extends the period of 3 months—before the end of the extended period.\n(sec.46-ssec.2) If the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order in relation to any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the day on which the grounds for the application arose is, for the purposes of subsection (1) , taken to be the day of the making of the judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding.\n- (a) as soon as possible and, in any event, within 3 months after the day on which the grounds for the application arose; or\n- (b) if the court extends the period of 3 months—before the end of the extended period.","sortOrder":57},{"sectionNumber":"sec.47","sectionType":"section","heading":"Powers of court","content":"### sec.47 Powers of court\n\nThe court may grant the declaration or injunction sought in an application under section 43 instead of, or in addition to, a prerogative order if it considers it would be just and convenient to do so having regard to—\nthe nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and\nthe nature of the persons against whom relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and\nall the circumstances of the case.\nOn an application for review—\nany relief mentioned in section 43 (1) or (2) may be sought instead of, or in addition to, any other relief mentioned if it relates to the same matter; or\nthe court may grant the relief it considers the most appropriate available under this section, even if it is not included in the application.\nIf—\nthe relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order; and\nthe court is satisfied that there are grounds for setting aside the decision to which the application relates;\nthe court may, in addition to setting aside the decision, remit the matter to the court, tribunal, person or body concerned for further consideration, subject to such directions (including the setting of time limits for the further consideration, and for preparatory steps in the further consideration) as the court considers appropriate.\nIf the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order or prohibition order, the court may—\nby order, suspend the operation of a decision or order of a court, tribunal, authority or person to which the application relates until further order of the court; or\norder a stay of the proceedings to which the application relates until—\nthe determination of the application; or\nsuch other time as the court orders.\n(sec.47-ssec.1) The court may grant the declaration or injunction sought in an application under section 43 instead of, or in addition to, a prerogative order if it considers it would be just and convenient to do so having regard to— the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and the nature of the persons against whom relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and all the circumstances of the case.\n(sec.47-ssec.2) On an application for review— any relief mentioned in section 43 (1) or (2) may be sought instead of, or in addition to, any other relief mentioned if it relates to the same matter; or the court may grant the relief it considers the most appropriate available under this section, even if it is not included in the application.\n(sec.47-ssec.3) If— the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order; and the court is satisfied that there are grounds for setting aside the decision to which the application relates; the court may, in addition to setting aside the decision, remit the matter to the court, tribunal, person or body concerned for further consideration, subject to such directions (including the setting of time limits for the further consideration, and for preparatory steps in the further consideration) as the court considers appropriate.\n(sec.47-ssec.4) If the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order or prohibition order, the court may— by order, suspend the operation of a decision or order of a court, tribunal, authority or person to which the application relates until further order of the court; or order a stay of the proceedings to which the application relates until— the determination of the application; or such other time as the court orders.\n- (a) the nature of the matters in relation to which relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and\n- (b) the nature of the persons against whom relief may be granted by way of a prerogative order; and\n- (c) all the circumstances of the case.\n- (a) any relief mentioned in section 43 (1) or (2) may be sought instead of, or in addition to, any other relief mentioned if it relates to the same matter; or\n- (b) the court may grant the relief it considers the most appropriate available under this section, even if it is not included in the application.\n- (a) the relief sought in an application for review is a certiorari order; and\n- (b) the court is satisfied that there are grounds for setting aside the decision to which the application relates;\n- (a) by order, suspend the operation of a decision or order of a court, tribunal, authority or person to which the application relates until further order of the court; or\n- (b) order a stay of the proceedings to which the application relates until— (i) the determination of the application; or (ii) such other time as the court orders.\n- (i) the determination of the application; or\n- (ii) such other time as the court orders.\n- (i) the determination of the application; or\n- (ii) such other time as the court orders.","sortOrder":58},{"sectionNumber":"pt.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Miscellaneous","content":"# Miscellaneous","sortOrder":59},{"sectionNumber":"sec.48","sectionType":"section","heading":"Power of the court to stay or dismiss applications in certain circumstances","content":"### sec.48 Power of the court to stay or dismiss applications in certain circumstances\n\nThe court may stay or dismiss an application under section 20 , 21 , 22 or 43 or a claim for relief in such an application, if the court considers that—\nit would be inappropriate—\nfor proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or\nto grant the application or claim; or\nno reasonable basis for the application or claim is disclosed; or\nthe application or claim is frivolous or vexatious; or\nthe application or claim is an abuse of the process of the court.\nA power of the court under this section—\nmust be exercised by order; and\nmay be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding but, in relation to the power to dismiss an application, the court must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\nThe court may make an order under this section—\nof its own motion; or\non an application by a party to the proceeding.\nThe court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under this section.\nAn appeal may be brought from an order under this section only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\n(sec.48-ssec.1) The court may stay or dismiss an application under section 20 , 21 , 22 or 43 or a claim for relief in such an application, if the court considers that— it would be inappropriate— for proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or to grant the application or claim; or no reasonable basis for the application or claim is disclosed; or the application or claim is frivolous or vexatious; or the application or claim is an abuse of the process of the court.\n(sec.48-ssec.2) A power of the court under this section— must be exercised by order; and may be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding but, in relation to the power to dismiss an application, the court must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\n(sec.48-ssec.3) The court may make an order under this section— of its own motion; or on an application by a party to the proceeding.\n(sec.48-ssec.4) The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under this section.\n(sec.48-ssec.5) An appeal may be brought from an order under this section only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\n- (a) it would be inappropriate— (i) for proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or (ii) to grant the application or claim; or\n- (i) for proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or\n- (ii) to grant the application or claim; or\n- (b) no reasonable basis for the application or claim is disclosed; or\n- (c) the application or claim is frivolous or vexatious; or\n- (d) the application or claim is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (i) for proceedings in relation to the application or claim to be continued; or\n- (ii) to grant the application or claim; or\n- (a) must be exercised by order; and\n- (b) may be exercised at any time in the relevant proceeding but, in relation to the power to dismiss an application, the court must try to ensure that any exercise of the power happens at the earliest appropriate time.\n- (a) of its own motion; or\n- (b) on an application by a party to the proceeding.","sortOrder":60},{"sectionNumber":"sec.49","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs—review application","content":"### sec.49 Costs—review application\n\nIf an application (the costs application ) is made to the court by a person (the relevant applicant ) who—\nhas made a review application; or\nhas been made a party to a review application under section 28 ; or\nis otherwise a party to a review application and is not the person whose decision, conduct, or failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law, is the subject of the application;\nthe court may make an order—\nthat another party to the review application indemnify the relevant applicant in relation to the costs properly incurred in the review application by the relevant applicant, on a party and party basis, from the time the costs application was made; or\nthat a party to the review application is to bear only that party’s own costs of the proceeding, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding.\nIn considering the costs application, the court is to have regard to—\nthe financial resources of—\nthe relevant applicant; or\nany person associated with the relevant applicant who has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; and\nwhether the proceeding involves an issue that affects, or may affect, the public interest, in addition to any personal right or interest of the relevant applicant; and\nif the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (a) —whether the proceeding discloses a reasonable basis for the review application; and\nif the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (c) —whether the case in the review application of the relevant applicant can be supported on a reasonable basis.\nThe court may, at any time, of its own motion or on the application of a party, having regard to—\nany conduct of the relevant applicant (including, if the relevant applicant is the applicant in the review application, any failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence); or\nany significant change affecting the matters mentioned in subsection (2) ;\nrevoke or vary, or suspend the operation of, an order made by it under this section.\nSubject to this section, the rules of court made in relation to the awarding of costs apply to a proceeding arising out of a review application.\nAn appeal may be brought from an order under this section only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\nIn this section—\nreview application means—\nan application for a statutory order of review under section 20 , 21 or 22 ; or\nan application for review under section 43 ; or\nan appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to an order made by the court on an application mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) .\n(sec.49-ssec.1) If an application (the costs application ) is made to the court by a person (the relevant applicant ) who— has made a review application; or has been made a party to a review application under section 28 ; or is otherwise a party to a review application and is not the person whose decision, conduct, or failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law, is the subject of the application; the court may make an order— that another party to the review application indemnify the relevant applicant in relation to the costs properly incurred in the review application by the relevant applicant, on a party and party basis, from the time the costs application was made; or that a party to the review application is to bear only that party’s own costs of the proceeding, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding.\n(sec.49-ssec.2) In considering the costs application, the court is to have regard to— the financial resources of— the relevant applicant; or any person associated with the relevant applicant who has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; and whether the proceeding involves an issue that affects, or may affect, the public interest, in addition to any personal right or interest of the relevant applicant; and if the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (a) —whether the proceeding discloses a reasonable basis for the review application; and if the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (c) —whether the case in the review application of the relevant applicant can be supported on a reasonable basis.\n(sec.49-ssec.3) The court may, at any time, of its own motion or on the application of a party, having regard to— any conduct of the relevant applicant (including, if the relevant applicant is the applicant in the review application, any failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence); or any significant change affecting the matters mentioned in subsection (2) ; revoke or vary, or suspend the operation of, an order made by it under this section.\n(sec.49-ssec.4) Subject to this section, the rules of court made in relation to the awarding of costs apply to a proceeding arising out of a review application.\n(sec.49-ssec.5) An appeal may be brought from an order under this section only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.\n(sec.49-ssec.6) In this section— review application means— an application for a statutory order of review under section 20 , 21 or 22 ; or an application for review under section 43 ; or an appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to an order made by the court on an application mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) .\n- (a) has made a review application; or\n- (b) has been made a party to a review application under section 28 ; or\n- (c) is otherwise a party to a review application and is not the person whose decision, conduct, or failure to make a decision or perform a duty according to law, is the subject of the application;\n- (d) that another party to the review application indemnify the relevant applicant in relation to the costs properly incurred in the review application by the relevant applicant, on a party and party basis, from the time the costs application was made; or\n- (e) that a party to the review application is to bear only that party’s own costs of the proceeding, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding.\n- (a) the financial resources of— (i) the relevant applicant; or (ii) any person associated with the relevant applicant who has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; and\n- (i) the relevant applicant; or\n- (ii) any person associated with the relevant applicant who has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; and\n- (b) whether the proceeding involves an issue that affects, or may affect, the public interest, in addition to any personal right or interest of the relevant applicant; and\n- (c) if the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (a) —whether the proceeding discloses a reasonable basis for the review application; and\n- (d) if the relevant applicant is a person mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (c) —whether the case in the review application of the relevant applicant can be supported on a reasonable basis.\n- (i) the relevant applicant; or\n- (ii) any person associated with the relevant applicant who has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; and\n- (a) any conduct of the relevant applicant (including, if the relevant applicant is the applicant in the review application, any failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence); or\n- (b) any significant change affecting the matters mentioned in subsection (2) ;\n- (a) an application for a statutory order of review under section 20 , 21 or 22 ; or\n- (b) an application for review under section 43 ; or\n- (c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to an order made by the court on an application mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) .","sortOrder":61},{"sectionNumber":"sec.50","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs—application for reasons for decision","content":"### sec.50 Costs—application for reasons for decision\n\nOn an application to the court under part 4 in which the respondent to the application is the person to whom a request was made under section 32 for a statement in relation to a decision, the court—\nmay order that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant if the applicant is successful (in whole or part) in obtaining the relief sought; and\nmay only order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent—\nif the applicant is wholly unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought; and\nif the application—\ndoes not disclose a reasonable basis; or\nis frivolous or vexatious; or\nis an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (a) may order that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant if the applicant is successful (in whole or part) in obtaining the relief sought; and\n- (b) may only order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent— (i) if the applicant is wholly unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought; and (ii) if the application— (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (i) if the applicant is wholly unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought; and\n- (ii) if the application— (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or\n- (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or\n- (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (i) if the applicant is wholly unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought; and\n- (ii) if the application— (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or\n- (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or\n- (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.\n- (A) does not disclose a reasonable basis; or\n- (B) is frivolous or vexatious; or\n- (C) is an abuse of the process of the court.","sortOrder":62},{"sectionNumber":"sec.51","sectionType":"section","heading":"Intervention by Attorney-General","content":"### sec.51 Intervention by Attorney-General\n\nThe Attorney-General may, on behalf of the State, intervene in a proceeding before the court under this Act.\nIf the Attorney-General intervenes in a proceeding—\nthe Attorney-General is taken to be a party to the proceeding; and\nthe court may, in the proceeding, make such order as to costs against the State as the court considers appropriate.\n(sec.51-ssec.1) The Attorney-General may, on behalf of the State, intervene in a proceeding before the court under this Act.\n(sec.51-ssec.2) If the Attorney-General intervenes in a proceeding— the Attorney-General is taken to be a party to the proceeding; and the court may, in the proceeding, make such order as to costs against the State as the court considers appropriate.\n- (a) the Attorney-General is taken to be a party to the proceeding; and\n- (b) the court may, in the proceeding, make such order as to costs against the State as the court considers appropriate.","sortOrder":63},{"sectionNumber":"sec.52","sectionType":"section","heading":"Change in occupancy of office","content":"### sec.52 Change in occupancy of office\n\nIf—\na person has, in the performance of the functions of an office, made a decision in relation to which an application may be made to the court under this Act; and\nthe person no longer holds the office or, for whatever reason, is not performing the functions of the office;\nthis Act has effect as if the decision had been made by the replacement person for the office.\nThe reference to the replacement person for an office is a reference to—\nthe person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office; or\nif there is no person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office or the office no longer exists—the person specified by—\nthe Minister administering the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or\na person authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.\n(sec.52-ssec.1) If— a person has, in the performance of the functions of an office, made a decision in relation to which an application may be made to the court under this Act; and the person no longer holds the office or, for whatever reason, is not performing the functions of the office; this Act has effect as if the decision had been made by the replacement person for the office.\n(sec.52-ssec.2) The reference to the replacement person for an office is a reference to— the person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office; or if there is no person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office or the office no longer exists—the person specified by— the Minister administering the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or a person authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.\n- (a) a person has, in the performance of the functions of an office, made a decision in relation to which an application may be made to the court under this Act; and\n- (b) the person no longer holds the office or, for whatever reason, is not performing the functions of the office;\n- (a) the person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office; or\n- (b) if there is no person for the time being holding or performing the functions of the office or the office no longer exists—the person specified by— (i) the Minister administering the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or (ii) a person authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.\n- (i) the Minister administering the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or\n- (ii) a person authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.\n- (i) the Minister administering the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; or\n- (ii) a person authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.","sortOrder":64},{"sectionNumber":"sec.53","sectionType":"section","heading":"Respondent to applications concerning decisions of Governor in Council","content":"### sec.53 Respondent to applications concerning decisions of Governor in Council\n\nIn an application for a statutory order of review, or an application for review, that relates to a decision of the Governor in Council, the respondent to the application is to be—\nthe Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; and\nin relation to a decision to which paragraph (a) does not apply—the Minister responsible for tendering to the Governor in Council advice in relation to the matter to which the application relates.\n- (a) the Minister responsible for the administration of the enactment, or the scheme or program, under which the decision was made; and\n- (b) in relation to a decision to which paragraph (a) does not apply—the Minister responsible for tendering to the Governor in Council advice in relation to the matter to which the application relates.","sortOrder":65},{"sectionNumber":"sec.54","sectionType":"section","heading":"Amendment of documents","content":"### sec.54 Amendment of documents\n\nThe court may—\non such terms as it considers appropriate, permit a document lodged with a registry of the court in relation to an application under this Act to be amended; and\ndirect that the document be amended in a way specified by the court.\n- (a) on such terms as it considers appropriate, permit a document lodged with a registry of the court in relation to an application under this Act to be amended; and\n- (b) direct that the document be amended in a way specified by the court.","sortOrder":66},{"sectionNumber":"sec.55","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### Section sec.55\n\ns 55 om 1995 No. 23 s 29","sortOrder":67},{"sectionNumber":"sec.56","sectionType":"section","heading":"Strict compliance with rules not required","content":"### sec.56 Strict compliance with rules not required\n\nStrict compliance with rules of court made for the purposes of this Act is not required and substantial compliance is sufficient.","sortOrder":68},{"sectionNumber":"sec.57","sectionType":"section","heading":"No filing fee for application for reasons for decision","content":"### sec.57 No filing fee for application for reasons for decision\n\nDespite anything contained in the rules of court, a filing fee is not payable on an application to the court under part 4 .","sortOrder":69},{"sectionNumber":"pt.7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Declarations","content":"# Declarations","sortOrder":70},{"sectionNumber":"sec.58","sectionType":"section","heading":"Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973 reference","content":"### sec.58 Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973 reference\n\nThis section applies to the following item that was in schedule 1, part 1, immediately before the commencement of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000 , schedule , amendments of the Judicial Review Act 1991 , amendment 4 (the amendment )—\n7 Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973 , section 19\nIt is declared that the amendment never had any effect to omit the item and the item has been listed in schedule 1, part 1, at all times after the amendment.\nIt is further declared that the declaration in section 58, repealed by the Drug Legislation Amendment Act 2006 , section 73 , never had any effect.\ns 58 prev s 58 om 1995 No. 23 s 30\npres s 58 ins 2005 No. 70 s 107E\nsub 2006 No. 8 s 73\n(sec.58-ssec.1) This section applies to the following item that was in schedule 1, part 1, immediately before the commencement of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000 , schedule , amendments of the Judicial Review Act 1991 , amendment 4 (the amendment )— 7 Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973 , section 19\n(sec.58-ssec.2) It is declared that the amendment never had any effect to omit the item and the item has been listed in schedule 1, part 1, at all times after the amendment.\n(sec.58-ssec.3) It is further declared that the declaration in section 58, repealed by the Drug Legislation Amendment Act 2006 , section 73 , never had any effect.","sortOrder":71},{"sectionNumber":"sch.1-pt.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Enactments that provide for non-review or limited review of decisions","content":"# Enactments that provide for non-review or limited review of decisions","sortOrder":72},{"sectionNumber":"sch.1-pt.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Enactments to which this Act does not apply","content":"# Enactments to which this Act does not apply","sortOrder":73}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"circular_definition","section":"sec.41(2)","severity":"low","reasoning":"The definitions of 'certiorari order' and 'prohibition order' in s.3 are circular: they define the new orders purely as equivalents to the writs that s.41(1) abolishes. If the writs are truly gone, the only positive content for the new orders is derived from the abolished writs. The definitions have no independent meaning without the abolished writs, creating a logical dependency on something the Act simultaneously destroys.","confidence":0.72,"description":"Self-referential abolition with preserved jurisdiction: the section abolishes writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in s.41(1), then in s.41(2) preserves the same jurisdiction but requires it to be exercised by 'an order the relief or remedy under which is in the nature of, and to the same effect as' the abolished writ. The definition of 'certiorari order' in s.3 and 'prohibition order' in s.3 are themselves defined by reference to 'but for section 41' — meaning the definitions of the replacement orders are entirely dependent on the nature of the thing that has been abolished. You cannot define a new remedy solely by reference to an abolished remedy without retaining some positive, independent content for the new remedy."},{"type":"other","section":"sec.26(2) and sec.26(5)(b)","severity":"low","reasoning":"The period is described as 'beginning on the day on which the decision is made and ending 28 days after the relevant day'. The start date performs no mathematical function because the end date is calculated from the 'relevant day' alone, not from the start date. The beginning is legally meaningless in the calculation of the limitation period.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The limitation period can end before it effectively begins. Section 26(2) provides the period runs from 'the day on which the decision is made' and ends '28 days after the relevant day'. Under s.26(5)(b), where reasons are given within 28 days after the decision document is given, the 'relevant day' is the day the reasons are given. This means the period begins on the decision date but the 28-day clock only starts from a later day, which is coherent. However, s.26(2) says the period begins on the day the decision is made — yet the period cannot practically expire until 28 days after the relevant day, which may itself be up to 28 days after the decision document is given. The period therefore has a defined start (decision date) that is entirely notional, since the 28-day run only begins from the relevant day, not from the decision date. The 'beginning' has no operative effect."},{"type":"other","section":"sec.22(2)","severity":"low","reasoning":"Once a prescribed period has passed, the legislature has explicitly fixed a time limit which has been missed. Asserting that a duty continues 'despite the end of the period' effectively renders the prescribed period meaningless as a constraint on the decision-maker, while simultaneously using the breach of that period as the trigger for the review right. The purpose of the fixed period is undermined by its own override.","confidence":0.6,"description":"A decision-maker who fails to decide within the prescribed period is said to have a 'duty to make the decision despite the end of the period'. This creates the logical absurdity that a person who has already breached a time-limited duty now has an ongoing duty to perform, apparently without limit, while simultaneously having already failed to perform within the timeframe the law fixed. The ground for review is that the duty continues, but there is no mechanism to specify when this continuing duty is exhausted or what replaces the original period."},{"type":"other","section":"sec.33(4) and sec.33(5)","severity":"low","reasoning":"A person refusing to provide a statement of reasons must themselves give written reasons for that refusal. While not strictly illogical, this creates a recursive obligation: reasons must be given for not giving reasons. In practice this is manageable, but it is structurally self-referential.","confidence":0.55,"description":"The decision-maker who invokes the right to refuse the statement under s.33(4) must give notice of that refusal within 14 days of receiving the request (s.33(5)). However, s.33(4)(a) permits refusal only where the request was not made within 28 days of the decision document being given. The decision-maker therefore has 14 days to notify of the refusal but the entitlement to refuse depends on a fact (timeliness of the request) that is already established at the time of receipt. There is no absurdity in that. However, s.33(5) requires notice stating 'the reasons why it will not be given' — in the case of the timeliness ground, the reason is that the request was late. The decision-maker is thus required to give reasons for not giving reasons, creating a minor recursive obligation."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"sec.27","severity":"low","reasoning":"The section simultaneously grants an unlimited right to rely on unpleaded grounds and then provides a mechanism (amendment direction) that implies some constraint exists. The practical effect is ambiguous: can the court refuse to consider an unpleaded ground if the applicant declines to amend? The provision does not say.","confidence":0.5,"description":"Section 27 provides that an applicant for a statutory order of review 'is not limited to the grounds set out in the application' but then says the court may direct the application be amended to specify the ground. This creates an internal tension: if the applicant is not limited to the stated grounds, the amendment direction is arguably unnecessary; but if amendment is required to rely on a new ground, the applicant is effectively limited to the grounds in the (amended) application. The unlimited right and the amendment power are not fully reconciled."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"sec.46(1)(a)","severity":"low","reasoning":"An applicant who files on day 89 of the 3-month period technically complies with the time limit but may not have filed 'as soon as possible'. There is no provision addressing what happens when the filing is within 3 months but not as soon as possible. The dual requirement is internally inconsistent because only one of the two standards has any operative consequence.","confidence":0.68,"description":"Section 46(1)(a) requires an application for review (prerogative orders/injunctions) to be made 'as soon as possible and, in any event, within 3 months'. The phrase 'as soon as possible' imposes an obligation that is stricter than the 3-month outer limit, but there is no sanction, mechanism, or defined consequence for filing within 3 months but not 'as soon as possible'. The 'as soon as possible' requirement is an unenforceable obligation that sits alongside but is never given operative effect separate from the 3-month deadline."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.10(1)","section_b":"sec.13","confidence":0.82,"description":"Section 10(1) declares that rights conferred by this Act are 'in addition to' any other rights to seek review. Section 13, however, mandates that the court must dismiss a statutory order of review application if alternative review rights exist before another court or tribunal and the interests of justice so require. The mandatory dismissal obligation under s.13 directly contradicts the additive rights conferred by s.10(1) — the existence of alternative rights triggers mandatory exclusion of the Act's rights rather than supplementing them."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.10(1)","section_b":"sec.12(b)","confidence":0.8,"description":"Section 10(1) states that this Act's review rights are additional to other review rights. Section 12(b) permits the court to dismiss an application under this Act because 'adequate provision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review'. The existence of adequate alternative review rights — which s.10(1) says are merely additional — becomes a basis for eliminating the Act's own rights under s.12(b). This directly undermines the 'additional' character proclaimed in s.10(1)."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.26","section_b":"sec.46","confidence":0.85,"description":"Two different limitation periods apply to two different pathways for reviewing the same administrative decision. For a statutory order of review under s.20-22, s.26 provides a 28-day period (from the relevant day). For a prerogative order or prerogative injunction under s.43/s.46, the period is 3 months. Both pathways may be available in relation to the same underlying decision. This creates a situation where strategically choosing the prerogative pathway affords dramatically more time, undermining the purpose of the 28-day limit for statutory review."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"sec.29(1)","section_b":"sec.29(2)","confidence":0.6,"description":"Section 29(1) states that making an application 'does not affect the operation of the decision' or 'prevent the taking of action to implement the decision'. Section 29(2) immediately follows by empowering the court to 'suspend the operation of the decision' and 'order a stay of any proceeding under the decision'. While s.29(2) begins with 'despite subsection (1)', the structural effect is that the general rule stated in s.29(1) is immediately qualified to the point that the opposite result — suspension — is readily available. The 'despite' qualifier saves it from being a strict legal contradiction but the two subsections state diametrically opposed positions in immediate succession, with the second substantially nullifying the first as a practical matter."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.33(1)","section_b":"sec.33(2) and sec.33(3)","confidence":0.75,"description":"Section 33(1) imposes a mandatory obligation on the decision-maker to provide the statement within 28 days. Section 33(2) allows the decision-maker to instead give notice of opinion that the requester was not entitled, within the same 28-day period, as an alternative to compliance. Section 33(3) then provides that giving such a notice means the decision-maker 'is not required to comply with the request' unless the court orders otherwise. The mandatory obligation in s.33(1) is thus convertible into a complete exemption from compliance by the unilateral act of the decision-maker giving a notice — effectively making the 'must' in s.33(1) optional at the decision-maker's discretion."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"sec.41(1)","section_b":"sec.43(1)","confidence":0.65,"description":"Section 41(1) abolishes writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. Section 43(1) requires that an application for a 'prerogative order' must be made by way of an application for review. The definition of 'prerogative order' in s.3 refers to 'an order of a kind mentioned in section 41(2)'. Section 41(2) preserves jurisdiction to grant relief 'in the nature of' the abolished writs. The Act thus abolishes the writs (s.41(1)) while simultaneously creating a procedural requirement (s.43(1)) for obtaining their functional equivalents, defined entirely by reference to the abolished instruments. The abolition and the preservation operate simultaneously in a tension that is only resolved by the definitional machinery, which is itself circular."}]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"completionTokens":903},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 1991 Act has expanded significantly through amendments. Notable scope changes include: (1) 1994 addition of GOC exclusions (Section 18A); (2) 1997-2013 progressive expansion of local government and corporatised entity provisions; (3) 2010-2013 additions for rail government entities and transport infrastructure decisions (Section 18C); (4) 2020 insertion of 'royalty' definition linking to Taxation Administration Act. The Act has also accumulated declaratory provisions (Section 58) addressing legislative drafting errors, indicating scope creep into meta-legislative repair work."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping application pathways (Sections 20, 21, 22 for statutory orders; Section 43 for prerogative orders)","Extensive cross-referencing between Parts (e.g., Sections 35-37 on confidential information exceptions)","Nested conditional logic in time limit calculations (Section 26 with 5-tiered definition of 'relevant day')","9 distinct grounds for review in Section 20(2), each with potential case law interpretation","9 specific categories of 'improper exercise of power' in Section 23","Multiple exclusion regimes: Schedule 1 enactments, Section 18A GOCs/rail/electricity entities, Section 18C transport infrastructure decisions","Conditional costs jurisdiction in Section 49 with 4 discretionary factors and 2 protective orders","Relationship management with Commonwealth ADJR Act (Section 16) and other review rights (Division 3, Sections 10-15)","Defined terms with layered exclusions (e.g., 'decision to which this Act applies' in Section 4 has 2 prongs with sub-conditions)"],"plain_english_summary":"This is Queensland's **Judicial Review Act 1991**, which gives people a way to challenge government decisions in court.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Lets individuals ask the Supreme Court to review decisions made by Queensland government bodies, state authorities, and local councils\n- Covers three main situations: **bad decisions** (Section 20), **unfair process** while a decision is being made (Section 21), and **failure to make a decision at all** (Section 22)\n\n**Who can use it:**\n- Anyone whose interests are \"adversely affected\" by a government decision — called being a \"person aggrieved\"\n\n**What you can challenge:**\n- Decisions made under Queensland laws\n- Decisions made under non-statutory programs using public money (taxes or parliamentary appropriations)\n- Preparatory steps like investigations or inquiries\n\n**Grounds for review include:**\n- Breach of **natural justice** (fair process)\n- Decision-maker lacked **jurisdiction** (legal power)\n- **Improper exercise of power** — including ignoring relevant factors, considering irrelevant ones, acting in bad faith, or being so unreasonable no reasonable person would do it\n- **Error of law** or **fraud**\n- No evidence to support the decision\n\n**Key features:**\n- **Time limits:** Generally 28 days from when you receive reasons for the decision (Section 26)\n- **Right to reasons:** You can request a written statement explaining why a decision was made (Part 4)\n- **Stays:** The court can pause a decision while review is pending (Section 29)\n- **Remedies:** The court can quash decisions, send them back for reconsideration, declare rights, or issue directions (Section 30)\n\n**What's excluded:**\n- Decisions by Government-Owned Corporations (GOCs), rail entities, and electricity entities (to the extent specified)\n- Decisions listed in Schedule 1 (certain enactments with their own review mechanisms)\n- Cabinet deliberations and confidential business information\n\n**Costs protection:** Section 49 gives the court power to make costs orders that protect applicants with limited financial resources or cases raising public interest issues.\n\n**Historical note:** This Act replaced old English \"prerogative writs\" (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) with modern statutory orders, though it preserves similar remedies (Sections 41-42)."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act alters the legal remedies and procedures that applied before it in several concrete ways. It abolishes common‑law writs (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) as writs and replaces them with statutory orders of equivalent effect (s.41), and abolishes informations in the nature of quo warranto replacing them with statutory injunction relief and vacancy declarations (s.42). It also creates a statutory regime for requests for written reasons and sets time limits and exceptions (pt.4: ss.32–40), introduces specified procedural time limits for bringing applications (ss.26, 46), and imposes express exclusions and partial non‑application to certain government corporations and transport/electricity entities (ss.18, 18A, 18C and schedule references). Those changes shift both the form of remedies and the processes by which review is obtained compared with the earlier common‑law and antecedent statutory arrangements."},"complexity_factors":["Dense definitions and layered scope limits (definitions of ‘decision to which this Act applies’, ‘reviewable matter’, ‘person aggrieved’) (s.3, s.4, s.7).","Multiple procedural tracks and differing time limits: 28‑day rule for many statutory reviews (s.26) versus 3‑month rule for other review applications (s.46), plus court discretion to extend.","Replacement of common‑law writs with statutory orders and transitional treatment of prior references (ss.41–42) requiring careful mapping from old remedies to new remedies.","Interplay with other legislation and explicit exclusions (s.16, s.18, s.18A, s.18C and schedule cross‑references) — requires cross‑checking other statutes and schedules.","Detailed access to reasons regime with strict timeframes, specified exceptions (confidentiality, Attorney‑General certificate) and enforcement paths (pt.4: ss.32–40).","Broad judicial discretion to dismiss, stay or otherwise manage proceedings and award costs subject to public‑interest considerations (ss.15, 29, 48, 49), increasing case‑by‑case uncertainty.","Cost rules that allow unusual orders (indemnity from another party, limiting each party to own costs) and require factual enquiries about financial resources and public interest (s.49).","Multiple categories of reviewable conduct (decisions, preparatory conduct, failures to decide) each with tailored grounds and remedies (ss.20–22, s.8).","Procedural flexibility (amendment of documents, substantial rather than strict compliance with rules of court) that shifts some burden to judicial management (ss.54, 56)."],"plain_english_summary":"# What this law does\n\nThis Act sets out a single, statutory way for people to challenge administrative decisions made by the State, State authorities and local government bodies. It tells who can go to the Supreme Court, on what grounds, what remedies the court may grant, how and when requests for written reasons must be made and answered, and how older common-law writs are to be treated.\n\n- Court and scope (who decides): The Supreme Court has the power to hear applications under the Act (s.19). The Act applies to \"decisions of an administrative character\" made under an enactment and to some decisions made under non‑statutory schemes that use public money (s.4, s.9).\n\n- Who can apply and why it matters to them: A person whose interests are adversely affected by a reviewable matter may apply (s.7, s.44). Applications may challenge decisions, conduct preparing a decision, or failures to decide (s.3 definition; s.20–22). That matters because it gives private persons a route to have administrative acts examined and corrected by the Court.\n\n- Grounds for review and remedies (what the Act changes mechanically): The Act lists specific statutory grounds (natural justice, breach of required procedures, lack of jurisdiction, error of law, fraud, no evidence, improper exercise of power, etc.) on which the Court can be asked to set aside or direct action (s.20–21, s.23–24). Remedies available include quashing or setting aside decisions, referring matters back with directions, declarations, orders directing a decision to be made, and injunctions (s.30, s.47). The classic prerogative writs (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) are abolished as writs and replaced by equivalent statutory orders (s.41); quo warranto informations are abolished and replaced by injunctions and vacancy declarations (s.42).\n\n- Reasons and transparency (new procedural obligations): Persons entitled to seek review may request a written statement of reasons for a decision; decision‑makers must, normally within 28 days, provide reasons (s.32–33, s.34). The Act creates limited exceptions for confidential personal/business information and material covered by an Attorney‑General certificate, and requires notice if reasons are withheld (s.35–37). The Court can enforce provision of reasons or order further particulars (s.38–40).\n\n- Time limits and effect of starting proceedings: For statutory orders of review the deadline is typically 28 days from the relevant day (s.26). For applications under the prerogative/order procedure in part 5 the default limit is 3 months from when grounds arose (s.46). Making an application does not automatically stop a decision from operating or its implementation — the Court may grant a stay or suspend operation by order (s.29, s.47(4)).\n\n- Court discretion, dismissal and costs: The Court has multiple discretionary powers to dismiss or stay applications where continuation would be inappropriate, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process (s.48). The Court may order costs in different ways (including indemnity-style orders in particular circumstances) and must have regard to applicants' financial resources and public‑interest factors (s.49–50). The Attorney‑General may intervene and is treated as a party; the Court may make costs orders against the State in such proceedings (s.51).\n\n# Why this matters in practical terms (mechanisms, incentives and trade-offs)\n\n- Who pays: Applicants can be ordered to pay costs if wholly unsuccessful in certain applications and may be indemnified by other parties in other circumstances; the Court considers resource levels and public‑interest issues when ordering costs (s.49–50). The State can be ordered to pay costs when the Attorney‑General intervenes (s.51).\n\n- Who must act and what they must do: Decision‑makers must provide written reasons on request within 28 days unless specified exceptions apply (s.32–33, s.34–37). Administrative bodies must comply with Court orders, and may face directions to reconsider decisions (s.30). Officials who doubt a requester’s entitlement may apply to the Court to avoid disclosure (s.33, s.39).\n\n- Compliance burden and bureaucracy: Agencies face compliance costs from drafting reasons, responding to requests within tight timeframes, and defending review applications. The Act allows refusal where disclosure would reveal confidential business or harm competitive commercial activities (s.35) or where the Attorney‑General certifies public‑interest nondisclosure (s.36), which introduces routine steps for deciding and recording refusals and providing statutory notices (s.33(5), s.37).\n\n- Discretion and implementation risk: The Court has broad discretion (to dismiss, stay, extend time, order further particulars, refer matters back with directions). Those discretions create legal uncertainty for both applicants and agencies about likely outcomes and timing (s.15, s.30, s.48). Making an application does not automatically stop implementation, so agencies may proceed unless the Court orders otherwise (s.29).\n\n- Interaction with other laws and limits on scope: The Act expressly preserves differences where other laws provide review paths or exemptions. It applies despite laws in force at commencement but excludes enactments listed in schedule 1 and some classes of decisions specified elsewhere (s.16, s.18, s.18A, s.18C). The Act also provides a cross‑reference table to the Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (s.16), showing an intent to align language while maintaining the State statute.\n\n- Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs: The immediate beneficiaries are applicants who obtain reasons or remedies; administrative bodies and the public purse face the direct compliance and defence costs. Because the Court may order costs with attention to public‑interest factors, proceedings raising public issues may impose different cost incentives than purely private disputes (s.49(2)).\n\n# Key practical takeaways (section pointers)\n\n- Who hears cases: Supreme Court (s.19).\n- Grounds to apply: set out in ss.20–22; the Act defines \"improper exercise\" and \"no evidence\" narrowly (ss.23–24).\n- Remedy types: quashing, referral with directions, declarations, mandatory orders and injunctions (ss.30, 47).\n- Reasons: request under s.32; decision‑maker normally must answer within 28 days (s.33); content must state reasons (s.34); limited exceptions for confidential or cabinet material (ss.35–36) and procedural rules for notice when withholding occurs (s.37).\n- Time limits: 28 days for statutory order of review in many cases (s.26); 3 months for other review applications unless extended (s.46).\n- Abolition/replacement of ancient writs: prerogative writs abolished as writs and replaced by equivalent orders; quo warranto replaced by injunction and vacancy declaration (ss.41–42).\n\nThis summary describes what the Act requires and enables, who bears costs and duties under it, where discretion sits, procedural deadlines and the principal trade‑offs created by the statutory framework (citations in parentheses refer to the relevant sections cited above)."},"summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act's scope has expanded beyond its original form through multiple amendments. Originally modelled closely on the Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Queensland Act was extended to cover: decisions under non-statutory government schemes funded by public money (broadening beyond purely statutory decisions); government-owned corporations and rail/electricity entities (albeit with carve-outs); and corporatised local government bodies. Conversely, scope was narrowed through the addition of exclusions for specific entities (GOCs, rail government entities, State electricity entities) and particular legislative schemes listed in the schedules. The addition of royalty-related definitions (2020) and transport infrastructure carve-outs (2010, 2013) reflect ongoing, incremental scope adjustments driven by Queensland's privatisation and corporatisation agenda rather than any single coherent policy shift."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping pathways to challenge government action (decisions, conduct, failure to decide), each with different rules and grounds","Complex time-limit provisions with cascading trigger events for the 28-day period depending on whether reasons were provided, requested, or refused","Interaction with numerous other Acts (Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Electricity Act 1994, Local Government Act 2009, Taxation Administration Act 2001, Commonwealth ADJR Act 1977) creating a web of cross-references","Layered exclusions — the Act applies broadly but is carved back by schedules, specific entity types (GOCs, rail entities, electricity entities), and other legislation","Dual-track review system: statutory orders of review (Part 3) and prerogative orders/injunctions (Part 5) operate under different rules, grounds, and time limits","Reasons-for-decision framework (Part 4) creates a separate procedural mini-system with its own application, refusal, and enforcement mechanisms","Court discretion is pervasive — the Act gives the court broad discretion at nearly every stage (to dismiss, stay, extend time, grant relief, or convert proceedings)","Modernisation of archaic common law writs into statutory orders requires understanding of both historical and current legal frameworks","The definition of 'improper exercise of power' spans nine distinct categories of administrative law grounds","Non-statutory schemes funded by public money are brought within scope, blurring the line between statutory and non-statutory government activity"],"plain_english_summary":"## Queensland's Judicial Review Act 1991 — What Is It and Why Does It Matter?\n\n### The Big Picture\nThis Queensland law gives ordinary people — and businesses — a formal way to challenge decisions made by government officials, agencies, and bodies. If a government decision affects you and you think something went wrong in the way it was made, this Act is your primary legal tool to fight back in the Supreme Court.\n\n### Who Does It Affect?\nAnyone whose interests are **adversely affected** (negatively impacted) by a Queensland government decision — including:\n- Individuals dealing with government departments\n- Businesses affected by licensing, permit, or approval decisions\n- People subject to government investigations or inquiries\n- Anyone whose application was refused, delayed, or wrongly decided\n\n### What Can You Challenge?\nYou can challenge three types of things:\n1. **A decision** — e.g., a licence was refused, a permit was revoked, an approval was denied\n2. **Conduct leading to a decision** — e.g., an investigation was conducted unfairly *before* a decision is made\n3. **A failure to decide** — e.g., a government body is taking unreasonably long to make a decision it's required to make\n\n### What Grounds Can You Use?\nYou can challenge a decision on multiple grounds, including:\n- **Natural justice (procedural fairness)** — you weren't given a fair hearing\n- **Jurisdiction** — the decision-maker had no legal authority to make the decision\n- **Error of law** — the law was applied incorrectly\n- **Improper use of power** — e.g., irrelevant factors were considered, relevant factors were ignored, the decision was made in bad faith, or the outcome was so unreasonable no sensible person could have made it\n- **Fraud** — the decision was obtained by deception\n- **No evidence** — there was no factual basis for the decision\n\n### Your Right to Know *Why* a Decision Was Made\nA crucial part of this Act: if you're affected by a government decision and it didn't come with written reasons, you can **formally request a written explanation**. The decision-maker generally has **28 days** to provide it. If they refuse or stall, you can go to the Supreme Court to force them to explain themselves.\n\n### Time Limits — Act Quickly!\n- To challenge a **decision**: generally **28 days** after you receive the written decision (or the written reasons, if requested)\n- For other review applications (prerogative orders — see below): **3 months** from when the problem arose\n- Courts can extend these deadlines, but don't rely on it\n\n### What Can the Court Do?\nIf you win, the Supreme Court can:\n- **Set aside (cancel)** the government decision\n- **Send the matter back** to the decision-maker to reconsider (often with instructions)\n- **Declare your legal rights**\n- **Order someone to do (or stop doing) something**\n- **Order a delayed decision to be made**\n- **Suspend a decision** while your challenge is being heard\n\n### Modernising Old Legal Tools\nThe Act also replaces some ancient legal procedures (called **prerogative writs** — Latin-named court orders used for centuries) with modern court orders that achieve the same result:\n- *Mandamus* (order to perform a duty) → now a **prerogative order**\n- *Certiorari* (quash an unlawful decision) → now a **certiorari order**\n- *Prohibition* (stop unlawful action) → now a **prohibition order**\n- *Quo warranto* (challenge someone's right to hold office) → now handled by **injunction**\n\n### What's *Not* Covered?\nThe Act doesn't apply to everything. It excludes:\n- Certain government-owned corporations (GOCs), rail entities, and electricity entities\n- Decisions under specific laws listed in the schedules\n- Purely commercial activities run in competition with private businesses\n- Cabinet deliberations can be protected from disclosure by the Attorney-General\n\n### Relationship With Other Review Rights\nThis Act **adds to** — it doesn't replace — other ways you might already have to challenge a decision (e.g., through a tribunal or appeal process). However, if you have an adequate alternative review process available, the court may tell you to use that instead."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991","history":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991/history","analysis":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/judicial-review-act-1991/documents"}}