Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell

The case involved Argos Pty Ltd (the first appellant) and two supermarket operators (the second and third appellants) who sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development (the first respondent) to approve a commercial development, including a supermarket, at the Giralang Local Centre. The appellants, who operated businesses in nearby local centres, alleged that the proposed development would adversely affect their economic interests through increased competition. The dispute concerned whether these economic interests qualified them as "persons aggrieved" under section 3B(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) for the purpose of challenging the Minister's decision. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellants, whose businesses were likely to suffer a loss of profitability due to increased commercial competition resulting from the approved development, were "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of the ADJR Act. This required the Court to determine the scope of the "person aggrieved" criterion, specifically whether it encompassed individuals whose interests were adversely affected solely by economic competition, and whether the assessment of standing should be influenced by the purpose or scope of the legislation under which the impugned administrative decision was made.

The High Court held that the test for standing under the ADJR Act is contained within the Act itself and does not vary according to the nature of the decision being reviewed. The Court reasoned that if it was shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the second and third appellants would suffer a not insignificant loss of profitability, no further inquiry into the directness or remoteness of that impact was necessary to establish that their interests were adversely affected. Consequently, they were considered "persons aggrieved" for the purposes of the ADJR Act. The Court rejected submissions that standing should be determined by reference to the scope and purpose of the Planning Act, finding that this would undermine the ADJR Act's purpose of simplifying judicial review.

The High Court allowed the appeal of the second and third appellants, finding they had standing to challenge the Minister's decision. The appeal of the first appellant was dismissed, as its economic interests were considered too remote. The Court set aside the orders of the ACT Court of Appeal concerning the second and third appellants and remitted the matter to that Court for further hearing on specific grounds.