Tax Practitioners Board v LMU25 [2026] FCA 429

Agent Services Act 2009

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Agent Services Regulations 2022

Federal Court of Australia|2026-04-15|Before: Mr J, McDonald J

For the reasons explained above, the Tribunal did not err by proceeding on the basis that it had power under s 32(2) of the ART Act to make an interim order that the Board not include any notification of or reference to the decisions in the register maintained pursuant to s 60‑135 of the TAS Act. The Board's application for judicial review of the stay order must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald.

Agent Services Act 2009

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Agent Services Regulations 2022

The question of whether the Tribunal should grant a stay is discretionary. The applicant before the Tribunal bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that a stay pursuant to s 32(2) is necessary for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review: see Kambourakis v Tax Practitioners Board [2025] ARTA 1 at [27]; Kender and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 4445 at [5].
Rather than quashing or vitiating the legal efficacy of a decision, a stay prevents steps being taken to give effect to the decision. Whether an administrative decision can be stayed under s 32(2) of the ART Act requires consideration of whether it is a step that implements or gives effect to the operation of the reviewable decision.

Section 32(2) of the ART Act is in similar terms to, and is evidently intended to have the same effect as, s 41(2) of the now-repealed Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). Section 41(2) empowered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to make an order "staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision to which the relevant proceeding relates ... for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review" by the AAT.
The operation of s 41(2) of the AAT Act, in the context of statutory obligations to publish notice of a decision which was the subject of an application for review by the AAT, was considered by the Full Court in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2009) 181 FCR 130; [2009] FCAFC 185 (ASIC v AAT). The precise issue that arose in that case was whether the AAT had power to make orders preventing ASIC from:

At a glance