Victorian State decisions: O56, statutory ‘appeal’ provisions and the Administrative Law Act
⚖️ 1. Overview: Judicial Review in Victoria
In the State of Victoria, judicial review of administrative decisions is governed primarily by three interrelated legal mechanisms:
A. Order 56 (O56) – Supreme Court Rules
Provides the procedural mechanism for initiating judicial review of administrative actions.
Applies when seeking:
Certiorari
Mandamus
Prohibition
Declarations
Injunctions
Not a source of jurisdiction, but a framework for procedure.
B. Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic)
Provides substantive rights of review on the grounds of jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, etc.
Key Sections:
Section 3 – Application for review
Section 4 – Grounds of review
Section 10 – Statement of reasons
C. Statutory Appeals
Many Acts in Victoria contain specific “statutory appeal” provisions that allow for appeal to courts or tribunals.
These often limit or exclude judicial review, requiring interpretation of legislative intent.
🧾 2. Key Legal Questions
When should O56 or Administrative Law Act be used?
Do statutory appeals exclude judicial review?
How has the court interpreted these mechanisms?
📚 Key Case Law and Detailed Explanation
1. Victorian Legal Aid v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (2011) 33 VR 470
🔍 Facts:
VLA sought review of a Magistrate’s decision refusing a suppression order.
Question was whether VLA could bring an application under O56 and the Administrative Law Act.
⚖️ Held:
Court clarified the interaction between O56 and the Administrative Law Act.
Found that both could be used concurrently unless clearly excluded.
Emphasized that O56 provides the procedural path, while the ALA provides the substantive grounds for review.
📌 Significance:
Confirmed that O56 is not a source of jurisdiction.
Reinforced that procedural and substantive rights operate together.
2. Director of Housing v Sudi (2011) 33 VR 559
🔍 Facts:
The Director sought possession of premises; the tenant argued their human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) had been breached.
The Magistrates’ Court refused to consider Charter issues.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court of Victoria held that lower courts (like Magistrates’ Court) cannot conduct judicial review.
Only the Supreme Court has the power to conduct judicial review under O56 and the ALA.
📌 Significance:
Clarified exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in administrative law matters.
Demonstrated limitations of statutory decision-makers’ power to consider broader public law questions.
3. Foster v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2012) 36 VR 1
🔍 Facts:
A decision under the Working with Children Act was challenged.
Issue: Could the applicant seek judicial review under the Administrative Law Act, or was he confined to the statutory appeal process?
⚖️ Held:
The Court found that statutory appeal provisions do not necessarily exclude judicial review, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication says so.
📌 Significance:
Confirmed co-existence of statutory appeals and judicial review.
Courts will look for clear legislative intent to exclude judicial review.
Reinforced importance of jurisdictional error as a ground of review.
4. Kuek v Victoria Legal Aid (2001) 3 VR 404
🔍 Facts:
A decision by Victoria Legal Aid to refuse funding was challenged under the Administrative Law Act.
Question arose whether such decisions are “reviewable decisions”.
⚖️ Held:
The Court held that only decisions that affect legal rights or obligations are reviewable under the ALA.
VLA’s decision was administrative discretion, not subject to judicial review in this case.
📌 Significance:
Clarified what types of decisions are “reviewable” under the ALA.
Not all administrative decisions are subject to review — only those affecting rights or obligations.
5. Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 (HCA, but applied in Victoria)
🔍 Facts:
Related to the role of Medical Panels in workers' compensation cases.
Question: Were Medical Panel decisions subject to judicial review?
⚖️ Held:
The High Court held that jurisdictional errors made by statutory decision-makers are reviewable, even if the statute is otherwise silent.
Judicial review survives unless expressly excluded.
📌 Significance:
Strong reaffirmation of the common law right to judicial review.
Applicable in Victoria, particularly in reading the ALA alongside statutory schemes.
🔍 Practical Distinctions
| Aspect | Order 56 (O56) | Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) | Statutory Appeals |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Procedural | Substantive & procedural | Legislative right of appeal |
| Source | Supreme Court Rules | Statutory (Vic) | Various statutes |
| Grounds | Judicial review only | Judicial review (e.g., jurisdictional error, denial of natural justice) | Merits or limited review (depends on statute) |
| Exclusion | N/A | Can be excluded by clear statutory language | May or may not exclude judicial review |
🎯 Conclusion
Victorian administrative law ensures that individuals have robust avenues for challenging government decisions. The Supreme Court holds exclusive power under:
Order 56 (procedure),
The Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) (substance), and
In some cases, statutory appeal mechanisms.
The courts have consistently held that judicial review is a fundamental common law right, only excluded by clear legislative intent.
📌 Suggested Use Cases
Let me know if you'd like:
A flowchart comparing O56 vs ALA vs statutory appeal
A template for drafting an application under Order 56
Case law-based problem questions for practice
RELATED Blog
0 comments