7.4 Judicial Review

The Queensland Judicial Review Act 1991 (external link) (JR Act) gives the public the right to:

• request the reasons for the decisions which adversely affect them; or
• seek a review of a decision in the Supreme Court.

As well as administrative decisions of Government departments and local authorities, the JR Act also applies to administrative decisions of semi-government agencies and statutory authorities.

'Administrative decisions' which are made under an enactment are reviewable. An enactment includes part of an Act or a statutory instrument such as regulations, rules, by-laws, ordinances, guidelines or standards. Administrative decisions made under non-statutory schemes or programs made by the State or local authority where the scheme or program is funded by parliamentary appropriations or from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by an enactment are also covered by the Judicial Review Act 1991.

'Decisions' include a failure to make a decision and actions and conduct leading up to the making of the decision. A decision can be an order, award or determination, certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission, licence, condition or restriction, declaration, requirement, demand or a refusal to hand over an article.

Some of the grounds for review are that:

• The decision-maker breached the rules of natural justice;
• The decision-maker did not observe the correct legal procedures;
• The decision-maker did not have the authority to make the decision;
• The decision was not authorised by the legislation it was purported to be made under;
• The decision involved an improper use of power;
• The decision involved an error of law;
• The decision is or may be tainted by fraud;
• There was no evidence or other material supporting the decision; or
• The decision was in some other way unlawful

Certain practices can minimise the likelihood of or assist in responding to requests for a Statement of Reasons and an application to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review. Board members should ensure that:

• delegations are kept up to date;
• each step in a decision is carefully documented by each person who contributes;
• file notes taken in the decision-making process do not contain irrelevant considerations;
• outgoing correspondence contains the name of the decision-maker; and
• correspondence produced after a decision is made do not vary or appear to vary a decision if this is not intended

Last reviewed: 17 July, 2009

Last updated: 22 July, 2009

^ to top