{"id":"tas:sr-2002-022","name":"Supreme Court Amendment (Judicial Review) Rules 2002","slug":"supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"22 of 2002","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":318501,"registerId":"tas-tas:sr-2002-022-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-08","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"### 1 Short title\n\n> These Rules of Court may be cited as the [Supreme Court Amendment (Judicial Review) Rules 2002](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2002-022) .","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"### 2 Commencement\n\n> These Rules of Court take effect on the day on which their making is notified in the *Gazette*.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Principal Rules","content":"### 3 Principal Rules\n\n> In these Rules of Court, the [Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008) are referred to as the Principal Rules.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 4.\n\n[Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008)","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 5.\n\n[Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008)","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 6.\n\n[Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008)","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Rules of the Supreme Court 1965  amended","content":"### 7 Rules of the Supreme Court 1965  amended\n\n> Part XIII of the [Rules of the Supreme Court 1965](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2002-022) is rescinded.\n\nW. J. E. COX\n\nChief Justice\n\nE. C. CRAWFORD\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nP. E. EVANS\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nA. M. BLOW\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nCountersigned,\n\nI. G. RITCHARD\n\nRegistrar\n\nDisplayed and numbered in accordance with the *[Rules Publication Act 1953](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1953-050)*.\n\nNotified in the *Gazette* on 17 April 2002\n\nThese Rules of Court are administered in the Department of Justice and Industrial Relations.","sortOrder":6}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The instrument changes scope by removing the prior procedural regime (Part XIII, Rules of the Supreme Court 1965) and directing users to the Supreme Court Rules 2000. That shifts which rule-set governs judicial-review procedure and may alter filing, timing and registry practices for affected parties."},"complexity_factors":["Single, narrow action: rescission of Part XIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (straightforward repeal).","Cross-reference reliance: declares the Supreme Court Rules 2000 as the Principal Rules, requiring users to consult a separate instrument for detailed procedure.","Commencement mechanism: takes effect on Gazette notification, creating an implementation timing dependency.","Administrative implementation: registrar and Department of Justice and Industrial Relations must record and apply the change.","Transitional uncertainty: potential procedural ambiguity for matters begun under the old rules until practice directions or guidance are issued.","Scope limited to procedure: does not change substantive rights or merits of judicial review, only the procedural regime."],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument removes (rescinds) Part XIII of the former Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and records that the Supreme Court Rules 2000 are the Principal Rules. Mechanically, it replaces an older set of judicial-review procedure rules with the newer framework, so litigants, lawyers and court staff must follow the Supreme Court Rules 2000 rather than the rescinded Part XIII. This matters because it changes which procedural rules apply to judicial-review applications and may create transitional compliance tasks for ongoing matters."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available information, there is no indication the instrument's scope changed from its original intent. It appears to be a focused procedural amendment to judicial review procedures in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, which has remained in force without substantive modification since 2002."},"complexity_factors":["Limited substantive content available — only metadata and status information provided, preventing full analysis","Procedural/rules instrument rather than primary legislation, which typically involves cross-referencing with the parent Rules","Judicial review itself can be conceptually complex for laypeople, involving administrative law principles","Amendment instrument requires reading in conjunction with the principal Supreme Court Rules to understand full effect"],"plain_english_summary":"This 2002 amendment adjusts Supreme Court of Tasmania procedure for judicial review applications — i.e., how people challenge government decisions in the Court. It affects applicants, Tasmanian lawyers, and government decision‑makers by changing procedural rules (forms, timing, filing, etc.). It is a technical, procedural update rather than a change to substantive rights and has been in force since 17 April 2002."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation appears to serve its original narrow purpose of updating Supreme Court rules for judicial review procedures and removing obsolete 1965 provisions. There is no evidence of scope creep; it is a targeted amendment."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short document (only 7 sections, many effectively blank)","Minimal defined terms (only 'Principal Rules' is explicitly defined)","Single substantive amendment (rescinding Part XIII of 1965 Rules)","No conditional logic or nested exceptions","Heavy reliance on external documents (references to 2000 and 1965 Rules without reproducing their content)","Sections 4, 5, and 6 appear to be placeholders or formatting artifacts with no actual content"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a short set of court rules that makes two main changes to how the Supreme Court operates:\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Updates the naming:** These rules officially become the 'Supreme Court Amendment (Judicial Review) Rules 2002' and link back to the main 'Supreme Court Rules 2000' (which it calls the 'Principal Rules').\n- **Cleans up old law:** It **rescinds** (formally cancels) Part XIII of the old 'Rules of the Supreme Court 1965'. This removes outdated procedural rules from 1965 that are no longer needed now that the 2000 Rules are in place.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Lawyers and litigants involved in **judicial review** cases (where a court reviews whether a government decision was made lawfully)\n- The Supreme Court itself, which must follow these updated procedures\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis is housekeeping legislation. It tidies up the rulebook by removing obsolete 1965 rules and ensuring the 2000 Rules properly cover judicial review procedures. It prevents confusion about which rules apply and ensures modern, consistent procedures for challenging government decisions in court."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002","history":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002/history","analysis":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-judicial-review-rules-2002/documents"}}