The Queensland Government is now in caretaker mode until after the state election. Minimal updates will be made to this site until after the election results are declared.

Skip links and keyboard navigation

    7.5 Judicial Review

    Queensland's Judicial Review Act 1991 (the JR Act) gives the public the right to request the reasons for decisions which adversely affect them, or seek a review of a decision in the Supreme Court. In addition to administrative decisions of government departments and local authorities, the JR Act applies to administrative decisions of quasi-government agencies and statutory authorities.

    The JR Act applies to the following types of government decisions:

    1. a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment (whether or not in the exercise of a discretion); or
    2. a decision of an administrative character made, or proposed to be made, by, or by an officer or employee of, the state or a state authority or local government authority under a non-statutory scheme or program involving funds that are provided or obtained (in whole or part)--
      1. out of amounts appropriated by Parliament; or
      2. from a tax, charge, fee or levy authorised by or under an enactment.1

    The JR Act also provides judicial review in relation to failure to make a decision2 and actions and conduct leading up to the making of the decision.3 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.4

    Some of the grounds for judicial review are that:

    • The decision-maker breached the rules of natural justice5.
    • 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 unlawful6.

    Certain practices can minimise the likelihood of, or assist in responding to, requests for a Statement of Reasons or an application to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review. Government 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
    • correspondence produced after a decision is made do not vary

    1. Section 4 JR Act
    2. Section 21 JR Act
    3. Section 21 JR Act
    4. Section 5 JR Act
    5. The rules of natural justice provide for procedural fairness, the applicant to be given a fair hearing, the right to have the decision made by an unbiased decision maker and to have the decision based on logically probative evidence.
    6. Section 20(2) JR Act

    ^ to top

    Last updated:
    18 May, 2016
    Last reviewed:
    29 July, 2010