What this law does, who it affects, and why it matters
This Act creates a statutory route for people and organisations to ask the ACT Supreme Court to review administrative decisions on questions of law. The Court reviews the legality of decisions (for example, jurisdiction, errors of law, breach of natural justice), the conduct undertaken to make proposed decisions, and unreasonable delays in making decisions (see ss 5–7). (s5, s6, s7)
Who can apply: an "eligible person" may apply (individuals, corporations, or organisations in certain circumstances). Applications about Planning Act 2023 or Heritage Act 2004 decisions are subject to a tighter standing test: the applicant must show their interests are or would be adversely affected, except where other statutory bars apply. Other categories of decisions are subject to a more permissive standing test unless excluded by law (s4A). (s4A)
Time limits and procedure: generally an application for review must be filed within 28 days after the decision is made or after the decision‑maker gives a written statement of reasons; there is a reduced 10 business‑day limit for certain biosecurity emergency decisions (s10). Applicants must set out grounds in their application but may later rely on additional grounds with the Court’s leave (ss 9–11). (s9, s10, s11)
Remedies and judicial discretion: the Supreme Court has broad discretionary remedies: quash or set aside decisions, remit matters for reconsideration with directions, declare rights, or order parties to act or refrain from acting to do justice. For failures to decide, the Court may order the decision be made (s17). The Court can stay operations or implementation of a decision on conditions (s16). (s16, s17)
The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) establishes a statutory mechanism for eligible persons to seek Supreme Court oversight of administrative decision-making by Territory officials and agencies. At its core, the Act creates three distinct causes of action: review of a completed decision (s 5), review of conduct preparatory to a decision (s 6), and review of a failure to make a required decision (s 7). Each cause is available only in relation to a "decision to which this Act applies", defined in the Dictionary as a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made or required to be made under an enactment, other than those listed in Schedule 1.
Section 3A expansively defines both the making of a decision and failure to make a decision. Making a decision includes making, suspending, revoking or refusing orders, certificates, approvals, licences, conditions, declarations, demands, or "doing or refusing to do anything else" (s 3A(1)(g)). Where an enactment requires a report or recommendation before a decision, the report or recommendation itself constitutes a reviewable decision (s 3A(2)). Parallel provision is made for failures (s 3A(3)).
Section 3C further widens the net by treating "conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision" as including any preparatory step such as taking evidence or holding an inquiry. This allows challenges before a final decision crystallises.
The grounds of review are codified in ss 5, 6 and 7 and mirror, with minor textual adaptations, the classic administrative-law errors. Section 5(1) lists nine grounds: breach of natural justice, failure to observe required procedures, lack of jurisdiction, lack of authority, improper exercise of power, error of law, fraud, no evidence, and "otherwise contrary to law". A note to s 5(1) cross-references the Human Rights Act 2004 s 40B(1)(b) obligation on public authorities to give proper consideration to relevant human rights.
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1989.
1
Official source available
Zoe has indexed the source text for search and analysis. Use the official register for the original document and download formats.
Sourced from the ACT Legislation Register (legislation.act.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Access to reasons and limits on disclosure: a person entitled to seek review may request a written statement of reasons; the decision‑maker must provide it as soon as practicable and within 28 days, subject to statutory exclusions and exceptions. The Act creates specified grounds for withholding information from a reasons statement (personal/business affairs, trade secrets, statutory duties of confidence) and allows the Minister to certify that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest (ss 13–15). Schedule 2 lists decision types to which the reasons‑statement duty does not apply. (s13, s14, s15; sch 2)
Exclusions and regulatory carve‑outs: the Act does not apply to many specific decision types listed in Schedule 1 (for example, certain taxation assessments, tribunal decisions, prosecutorial and many public‑service personnel decisions). The Executive may also make regulations declaring additional decision types not subject to review under this Act (s20; sch 1). (sch 1, s20)
Intervention and costs: the Minister may intervene on behalf of the Territory and, if the Minister intervenes, the Court may make costs orders against the Territory. The Court may also permit other interveners subject to conditions (ss 19–19A). (s19, s19A)
Mechanics, incentives and trade‑offs (source‑grounded observations)
Transparency incentive and compliance cost for administrators: decision‑makers must produce statements of reasons on request within 28 days (s13(2)). That creates a direct administrative task and record‑making obligation. The Act offers rules for refusal and formal paths for the decision‑maker to seek a court declaration that a requester is not entitled to a statement (s13(3)–(6)). (s13)
Limits on disclosure and centralised discretion: the Act permits withholding of particular information classes (personal/business affairs, trade secrets, statutory secrecy duties) from reasons statements (s14). It also allows a Ministerial certificate to bar disclosure for public‑interest reasons (s15). These provisions reduce the transparency incentive in specified cases and concentrate final withholding discretion in the Executive and the Court. (s14, s15)
Standing and concentrated litigation risk: for Planning Act 2023 and Heritage Act 2004 matters the Act narrows who can apply (s4A). Schedule 1 and the regulation‑making power (s20) also remove reviewability for many specific decision types. Those exclusions change who bears the benefit of review rights (applicants) and who bears the risk of legal challenge (decision‑makers). (s4A, sch 1, s20)
Speed and litigation pressure: the 28‑day limit (and 10 business‑day biosecurity limit) pressures applicants to move quickly (s10). That reduces time for pre‑litigation negotiation but provides legal certainty about challenge windows. The Court may extend time, or refuse stale applications as unreasonable (s10(4)–(6)). (s10)
Judicial control over remedies and process: the Supreme Court has broad discretion to craft remedies, refuse to grant review where other adequate review mechanisms exist, limit parties, and impose conditions on interveners (ss 8(2), 12, 17, 19A). This centralised judicial discretion allocates final outcome control to the Court rather than to administrative bodies. (s8(2), s12, s17, s19A)
Practical compliance steps and implementation risks
Decision‑makers should have procedures to prepare concise reasons within statutory timeframes and to identify exempt information early (s13(2); s14). They will need a process to obtain a Ministerial certificate if deemed necessary (s15). (s13, s14, s15)
Applicants must monitor decision notifications and written reasons to preserve their 28‑day (or 10 business‑day) time window and be prepared to show eligibility under s4A where category A decisions (Planning/Heritage) are involved. (s10, s4A)
The Executive’s regulation power to exclude decisions (s20) and the detailed lists of current exclusions (Schedule 1 and Schedule 2) mean the practical scope of review can shift over time; practitioners must check the current schedules and any regulations when advising clients. (s20, sch 1, sch 2)
Net effect in mechanical terms
The Act sets out: who may challenge an administrative decision or related conduct, on what legal grounds, within what time limits; the decision‑maker’s duty to give reasons (and the allowed exceptions); the Court’s remedial toolkit; and routes for intervention and exclusion. The Act therefore creates a structured, court‑based mechanism for review of administrative legality, while also building in specified limits and exceptions (ss 4–20; schs 1–2). (s4–s20; sch 1; sch 2)
The concept of improper exercise of power receives nine non-exhaustive elaborations in s 5(2), including irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, bad faith, acting at the behest of another, inflexible application of policy, Wednesbury unreasonableness, uncertainty of outcome, and any other abuse of power. Identical language appears in s 6(2) for conduct review. The "no evidence" ground is qualified by s 5(3) and s 6(3) so that it is made out only where statute required a particular matter to be established and no evidence existed from which the decision-maker could reasonably be satisfied, or where the decision was based on a non-existent fact.
For failure-to-decide cases, s 7 creates two limbs. Where no statutory time limit exists, the ground is unreasonable delay (s 7(1)). Where a time limit does exist, the ground is that the duty to decide continues after the period expires (s 7(2)).
Standing is governed by s 4A. Only an "eligible person" (defined in the Dictionary as an individual, a corporation in respect of post-incorporation matters, or an unincorporated association where the subject matter aligns with its objects) may apply. Category A decisions (Heritage Act 2004 decisions and most Planning Act 2023 decisions) require the applicant’s interests to be, or to be likely to be, adversely affected (s 4A(2)). Category B decisions (all other reviewable decisions) adopt a more liberal test: the application may proceed unless an enactment forbids it or the applicant’s interests are unaffected and the matter lacks significant public importance (s 4A(3)). The Supreme Court may summarily dismiss for lack of eligibility (s 4A(4)).
Procedural requirements include stating grounds in the originating application (s 9), observing time limits (s 10), and the court’s power to allow amendment of grounds (s 11). An application must generally be filed within 28 days after the "relevant day", which is defined in four cascading alternatives in s 10(7) keyed to delivery of the decision, delivery of reasons, response to a request for reasons under s 13, or refusal to supply reasons. A compressed 10-business-day limit applies to biosecurity emergency and control declarations (s 10(3)). The Court may refuse late applications brought outside any prescribed period if not made within a reasonable time, having regard to when the applicant became aware of the decision (s 10(6)).
Section 13 confers a right to request a statement of reasons (findings on material facts, evidence relied upon, and reasons) for most decisions. The decision-maker must respond within 28 days, but may decline if the request is out of time or if the decision is listed in Schedule 2 or already accompanied by reasons. Sections 14 and 15 permit withholding of third-party personal or business information supplied in confidence, trade secrets, or information whose disclosure is prohibited by another law or certified by a Minister as contrary to the public interest (including Executive deliberations).
The Court’s remedial powers are set out in s 17. For a completed decision the Court may quash or set aside the decision (with effect from any specified date), remit for further consideration with directions, declare rights, or order parties to do or refrain from doing anything "to do justice between the parties". Similar declaratory and injunctive powers apply to conduct and failure-to-decide cases. Orders may be stayed, varied or revoked (s 17(4)). Section 16 provides that mere commencement of proceedings does not stay the decision, but the Court may suspend its operation or stay related proceedings.
The Act operates despite anything in any earlier enactment (s 4) but does not exclude other review avenues; rather, it sits alongside them (s 8). Courts may, however, decline relief where parallel proceedings have been instituted or where adequate alternative provision exists, including under the Planning Act 2023 or Heritage Act 2004 (s 8(2)(b)(iii)).
Schedule 1 lists 18 classes of excluded decisions, ranging from building-fidelity-fund approvals through confiscation-of-criminal-assets decisions, tax assessments, electoral redistributions, gene-technology moratorium orders, health-practitioner regulation, royal commissions, and most planning decisions concerning light rail. Schedule 2 removes the s 13 duty to give reasons for criminal-justice administration, civil proceedings, territory-finance decisions, public-service personnel management (except those affecting a particular individual), certain appointments, specific Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 directions, and all ACAT decisions.
Section 20 permits regulations to add further exclusions, while s 21 confers a general regulation-making power. Ministerial and third-party intervention are regulated by ss 19 and 19A. The Minister may intervene on behalf of the Territory and attract costs orders (s 19). Other persons may be granted leave to intervene if their contribution is distinct, useful and will not unduly interfere with parties who have private interests (s 19A(2)).
Section 18 deals with changes in office-holders so that proceedings continue against the current incumbent or a Minister-nominated substitute. Section 12 allows eligible persons to apply to be joined as a party.
Taken together, the Act provides a comprehensive, time-limited, grounds-based pathway to Supreme Court supervision of ACT administrative action while carving out significant areas of executive and quasi-judicial activity from that supervision.
Who it affects
The Act primarily affects two groups: (1) ACT public officials and agencies who make administrative decisions, and (2) individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations who are, or may be, adversely affected by those decisions.
Decision-makers include any person exercising power under an ACT enactment (Dictionary, "decision to which this Act applies"). This encompasses directors-general, Ministers, statutory office-holders, delegates, and bodies such as the ACAT (though ACAT decisions are excluded from review by Schedule 2.7). Because s 18 treats a decision as made by the current holder of the office, changes of personnel do not defeat proceedings.
Eligible applicants are defined broadly in the Dictionary: natural persons, corporations (provided the matter arose after incorporation), and unincorporated organisations whose objects encompass the subject matter. For category A decisions (heritage and most planning matters) the applicant must demonstrate adverse effect on their interests (s 4A(2)). For category B decisions the presumption favours standing unless the applicant’s interests are unaffected and no significant public-importance issue is raised (s 4A(3)).
Third parties may be affected in two ways. Section 14 protects information concerning their personal or business affairs if supplied in confidence, constituting a trade secret, or protected by another enactment. Ministers may certify that disclosure would reveal Executive deliberations or otherwise be contrary to the public interest (s 15). Conversely, s 19A permits any person to seek leave to intervene if they can satisfy the three mandatory considerations in s 19A(2)(a).
The Territory itself is affected when the Minister intervenes (s 19) and may be ordered to pay costs. Because the Act binds the Territory despite any contrary provision in earlier laws (s 4), all Territory officials are subject to its procedural and substantive requirements unless a decision is expressly excluded.
Finally, legal practitioners, compliance officers and government lawyers must advise clients on the interaction between this Act and parallel rights under the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, the Ombudsman Act 1989, and specific statutory appeal regimes.
Key duties and rights
Duties imposed on decision-makers
Observe natural justice and any statutorily prescribed procedures (ss 5(1)(a)–(b), 6(1)(a)–(b)).
Act within jurisdiction and statutory authority (ss 5(1)(c)–(d), 6(1)(c)–(d)).
Exercise powers only for proper purposes, considering relevant and ignoring irrelevant matters, without inflexible policy application, bad faith or dictation (s 5(2)).
Ensure decisions are supported by some evidence capable of grounding the required state of satisfaction (s 5(3)).
Provide a statement of reasons within 28 days of a valid request (s 13(2)), subject to the exceptions in ss 13(7), 14 and 15.
Refrain from disclosing protected third-party information or information covered by a ministerial certificate (ss 14–15).
Comply with any stay or other order made under ss 16 or 17.
Rights conferred on eligible persons
Apply for review on any of the nine grounds (ss 5, 6, 7).
Obtain written reasons for most decisions (s 13(1)), or an additional statement with better particulars (s 13(10)).
Seek joinder as a party (s 12) or leave to intervene (s 19A).
Apply for a stay of the decision or related proceedings (s 16).
Benefit from the broad remedial powers in s 17, including quashing, remittal, declaratory relief and mandatory orders.
Have the application determined without being confined to the originally pleaded grounds, subject to any direction to amend (s 11).
Rights of third parties and the Territory
Protection of confidential information (s 14) and Executive deliberations (s 15).
Ministerial intervention as of right (s 19).
Discretionary intervention by non-parties meeting the s 19A(2) criteria.
The Human Rights Act 2004 overlay noted in s 5 reinforces the right to proper consideration of human rights in decision-making.
Penalties and enforcement
The Act itself creates no criminal offences or civil penalty units. Enforcement is exclusively through the Supreme Court’s public-law jurisdiction. Breach of the Act does not, of itself, generate a cause of action for damages; relief is confined to the orders listed in s 17.
If a decision-maker fails to supply reasons when obliged, the Court may order that a statement be given within a stated period (s 13(10)) and, implicitly, treat continued non-compliance as contempt. Refusal to comply with a s 17 order (for example, a mandatory order to make a decision or to refrain from implementing an unlawful one) would expose the official to contempt proceedings.
The penalty-unit note on the republication page (value $160 for individuals, $810 for corporations) applies only to offences contained in other legislation that may be engaged collaterally. The Act’s own enforcement mechanism is coercive rather than punitive: quashing, remittal, stays, declarations and injunctions.
Costs are at the Court’s discretion. When the Minister intervenes, the Court may order the Territory to pay costs (s 19(2)(b)). Unsuccessful applicants risk adverse costs orders, a factor that influences tactical decisions about intervention under s 19A.
How it interacts with other laws
The Act is expressed to operate "despite anything contained in any enactment in force at the commencement of this Act" (s 4), but it is not an exclusive code. Section 8(1) declares that the rights it confers are additional to other review rights and are to be disregarded for the purposes of Ombudsman Act 1989 s 6(6). Courts may nevertheless refuse relief if parallel proceedings have been instituted or if adequate alternative provision exists (s 8(2)).
Specific interaction rules appear throughout. Category A decisions are confined to the Heritage Act 2004 and Planning Act 2023 (other than those in Schedule 1). Planning and heritage matters that are already under review under those Acts may trigger discretionary refusal of ADJR relief (s 8(2)(b)(iii)). Decisions under the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 22B are excluded from the duty to give reasons (s 13(13)(a)), and all ACAT decisions are wholly excluded from review (Schedule 2.7).
Taxation statutes are carved out comprehensively: Duties Act 1999, Payroll Tax Act 2011, Taxation Administration Act 1999 and repealed stamp-duty legislation appear in Schedule 1. Their objection and review pathways remain undisturbed.
Criminal justice and sentence-administration decisions are largely insulated (Schedule 1 items 2–4, Schedule 2.1 and 2.6). The Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004, Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 and most decisions under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 are removed from ADJR scrutiny.
The Biosecurity Act 2023 receives special procedural treatment: emergency and control declarations must be challenged within 10 business days (s 10(3)).
Human rights considerations are imported by the note to s 5(1) referencing Human Rights Act 2004 s 40B. The Legislation Act 2001 supplies definitions (Dictionary note 1), rules on editorial amendments, penalty units, and the status of notes.
Section 20 authorises regulations to declare additional decisions immune from review, thereby allowing future legislative fine-tuning without amending the principal Act.
Recent changes and why
The republication effective 16 November 2025 incorporates amendments made by the Statute Law Amendment Act 2025 (A2025-29) sch 3 pt 3.2, which updated s 13. Earlier significant changes were introduced by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Act 2013 (A2013-37). That Act inserted s 4A (differentiated standing for category A and B decisions), repealed the former "person aggrieved" test, added s 19A (third-party intervention), amended the grounds provisions, and expanded the Dictionary definition of "eligible person".
The Planning (Consequential Amendments) Act 2023 and Biosecurity Legislation Amendment Act 2024 inserted references to the Planning Act 2023 and shortened time limits for biosecurity decisions, reflecting policy decisions to fast-track judicial oversight of emergency public-health measures while narrowing the volume of planning litigation.
Schedule 1 has been progressively lengthened to exclude light-rail-related development proposals, health-practitioner regulation, and additional tax-assessment decisions. These changes implement a legislative judgment that specialised statutory regimes (ACAT, revenue objection pathways, professional disciplinary bodies) should not be duplicated by general ADJR proceedings.
The 2013 standing reforms were designed to reduce frivolous or unmeritorious applications in planning and heritage matters while preserving public-interest litigation where genuine issues arise. The addition of explicit intervention criteria in s 19A(2) responded to growing third-party participation in planning disputes and sought to balance efficiency with broader input.
Court challenges and controversies
Because the statute is procedural, reported challenges have centred on the boundaries of the definitions in ss 3A and 3C, the scope of Schedule 1 and 2 exclusions, the application of the s 4A standing tests, and the breadth of the "improper exercise of power" ground.
Controversy has arisen over whether a "decision" includes internal advice, preliminary recommendations, or repeated exercises of the same power. Section 3A(2) deems a report or recommendation to be a decision where statute requires it before the final choice; this has been used to bring forward review and avoid the "premature" objection sometimes raised at common law.
The interaction between ADJR and ACAT merits review has generated dispute. Schedule 2.7 excludes ACAT decisions from the duty to give reasons, and Schedule 1 does not list ACAT decisions as wholly excluded from review; however, the broad "decision of the ACAT" definition in the Dictionary and the policy of the ACAT legislation have led courts to treat most ACAT outcomes as immune.
Ministerial certificates under s 15 have been challenged on the ground that the certificate itself must be supported by proper material and cannot be a mere assertion. Section 15(1)(b) permits certification on any ground that could found a public-interest immunity claim at common law; this has invited arguments that the certificate must disclose sufficient reasoning to permit judicial assessment of its validity.
The "no evidence" ground has been narrowly construed in accordance with the statutory qualifiers in s 5(3). Courts have emphasised that the ground is not a merits review invitation; the question is whether any material existed from which the decision-maker could reasonably have been satisfied.
Time-limit litigation under s 10 has focused on when the "relevant day" occurs, especially where reasons are requested and refused. The cascading definition in s 10(7) has produced satellite applications about whether a request under s 13 was made within a reasonable time (s 13(9)).
Gotchas
Most practitioners assume the ADJR Act provides a one-stop shop; in reality Schedule 1 and 2 exclusions remove large tranches of government activity. A decision under the Taxation Administration Act 1999 objecting to an assessment cannot be reviewed under this Act even if tainted by jurisdictional error; the specific statutory objection and appeal route is mandatory.
The 28-day time limit in s 10(2) is calculated from the "relevant day", which can be as late as the day a s 13 reasons statement is supplied. However, if the original decision document was given more than 28 days before the reasons request, the decision-maker may lawfully refuse to supply reasons (s 13(7)(a)). Late requests therefore risk both refusal of reasons and a judicial finding that the application was not brought within a reasonable time (s 10(4)–(6)).
Category A decisions (heritage and planning) now carry a stricter standing test and an explicit power to dismiss at any time if the applicant is not an eligible person (s 4A(4)). Framing an application as raising "significant public importance" does not assist a category A matter; that limb appears only in the category B test.
Section 8(2)(b)(iii) creates a discretionary bar where the same planning or heritage matter is already under review under its parent Act. Lodging both an ADJR application and a merits review can result in the Court refusing relief, even if the ADJR grounds appear strong.
The power to withhold reasons under ss 14 and 15 is self-executing once the decision-maker forms the requisite opinion; the requester’s only recourse is judicial review of that opinion or an application for discovery in the principal proceeding. Ministerial certificates under s 15 are particularly difficult to impeach because they need only assert a ground capable of supporting public-interest immunity.
Finally, the Act does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; if the decision is not "under an enactment" or is purely managerial (for example, certain public-service personnel decisions listed in Schedule 2.4), the ADJR route is unavailable and applicants must fall back on common-law prerogative relief with its attendant procedural hurdles.
How to comply
For decision-makers and agencies
Maintain accurate records of material considered and the reasoning process so that a s 13 statement can be prepared within 28 days.
When a request for reasons is received, check whether the decision falls within Schedule 2 or has already been accompanied by reasons. If refusing, issue the notice required by s 13(8) or s 14(3) or s 15(3) within 14 or 28 days as applicable.
For category A or B decisions, assess likely standing before finalising the decision; consider inviting submissions from potentially affected persons to reduce natural-justice risk.
Where a ministerial certificate under s 15 may be required, obtain it before supplying reasons.
If proceedings are served, immediately consider whether a stay under s 16 is necessary to preserve the status quo pending hearing.
Ensure any subordinate legislation made under s 20 or s 21 is notified and presented to the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the Legislation Act 2001.
For applicants and their advisers
Identify the precise "decision", "conduct" or "failure" and confirm it is not listed in Schedule 1.
Determine whether the decision is category A or B and address the applicable s 4A test in the originating application.
File within the 28-day (or 10-business-day biosecurity) period, calculating the "relevant day" by reference to s 10(7). Seek an extension under Legislation Act s 151C only as a last resort.
Plead all known grounds; remember the Court may allow additional grounds but may order amendment (s 11).
If reasons are required, make the s 13 request promptly. If refused, consider a separate application under s 13(6) or s 13(9) before commencing the principal review.
Where confidential information or ministerial certificates are invoked, prepare to argue the limits of ss 14 and 15 in the context of any discovery application.
Evaluate parallel rights under the Planning Act, ACAT Act or prerogative relief; commencing multiple proceedings risks discretionary refusal under s 8(2).
Institutional compliance
Agencies should maintain internal ADJR checklists, train decision-makers on the nine grounds and the expanded definition in s 3A, and establish protocols for rapid preparation of s 13 statements. Regular audit of decisions listed in the expanding schedules will minimise the risk of inadvertently reviewable ultra vires action in non-excluded areas.
By systematically addressing the statutory definitions, standing thresholds, time limits and exclusion lists, both decision-makers and challengers can navigate the Act efficiently and reduce the prospect of procedural satellite litigation.