Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia

Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd and another party (the applicants) sought judicial review of a decision by the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondent) to refuse their application for a licence to import and possess a quantity of live exotic birds. The applicants had applied for the licence under the *Quarantine Act 1908* (Cth) and the *Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982* (Cth). The decision was made by the respondent's delegate. The applicants sought to challenge this decision in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the licence was vitiated by a failure to observe the rules of procedural fairness. Specifically, the applicants contended that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to adverse information that was taken into account by the delegate in reaching the decision. This adverse information related to the potential risks associated with the importation of the birds, including disease transmission and environmental impact.

Gaudron and McHugh JJ held that the delegate's decision was invalid due to a breach of procedural fairness. Their Honours reasoned that where an administrative decision-maker relies on adverse information that has not been disclosed to the applicant, and to which the applicant has not been given a reasonable opportunity to respond, the decision will be unfair. In this instance, the delegate had considered reports and advice concerning the risks of importing the birds, which were not made available to the applicants, nor were they given an opportunity to comment on them. This failure to provide a fair hearing meant the decision could not stand.

The High Court ordered that the decision of the respondent to refuse the licence be quashed.