//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 204
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-06-19
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Harrison v Cheung Citation: [2026] ACTSC 204 Hearing Date: 19 June 2026 Decision Date: 19 June 2026 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: (1) The application is dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – where applicant seeking leave to appeal from a decision from the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where no appeal had been brought within the tribunal from the original decision – whether any appeal lies to the Supreme Court under s 86(1) of the of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT)
Legislation Cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), ss 79, 86 Cases cited Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 43; 124 CLR 192 Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland [2011] HCA 10; 242 CLR 573 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541 Parties: Rachel Harrison (Applicant) Anderson Cheung (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondent) Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondent) File Number: CA 45 of 2025 Decision Under Appeal: Tribunal: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Before: Member Hatami Date of Decision: 13 October 2025 Case Title: Cheung v Harrison
Tribunal File Numbers: RT 551 of 2025 RT 818 of 2025 McCALLUM CJ: EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED) Introduction
Before the Court is an application for leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The application is brought by Ms Rachel Harrison. The application expressly cites s 79 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT) (ACAT Act) as the source of the right of appeal invoked. That section provides that a party to an original application may, by application, appeal the decision to the Tribunal on a question of fact or law. The scheme of the ACAT Act is that Pt 8, Div 8.1 deals with referrals and appeals within the Tribunal, and that is the part within which s 79 sits. Part 8, Div 8.2, deals with appeals to this Court.
Section 86(1), which sits within Div 8.2, provides: (1) A party to an application, other than an application mentioned in subsection (2) or (3), for an appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of fact or law from either— (a) one of the following: (i) a decision of the appeal tribunal; (ii) if the appeal president dismissed the appeal under section 80—the original decision of the tribunal; (iii) if the appeal president decides not to deal with the appeal under section 85—the original decision of the tribunal; or (b) a decision of the tribunal in relation to a review of a decision under the Freedom of Information Act 2016.
The decision as to which Ms Harrison seeks leave to appeal does not fall within any of those categories. It is trite that appeals are creatures of statute and that no right of appeal lies except as provided by statute: Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 43; 124 CLR 192 at 202 (Windeyer J); Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland [2011] HCA 10; 242 CLR 573 at [57]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541 at [29] (Gageler J). The scheme of the ACAT Act contemplates that, prior to any application for leave to appeal to this court (leave being a requirement of s 86(4)), an aggrieved party seeking to appeal or review an original decision of the Tribunal must first seek to appeal the decision internally in accordance with the provisions of s 79.
It follows that that this Court has no power to entertain Ms Harrison’s proposed appeal. Orders
For those reasons I make the following order: (1) The application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum. Associate: Date:
Harrison
Cheung