Attorney-General (Tas) v Cameron

In the matter of Attorney-General (Tas) v Cameron, the High Court was asked to consider the appropriate standard of review when a court seeks to determine whether a decision-maker has erred in law in drawing an inference from facts. The dispute centred on the decision of the Tasmanian Planning Assessment Commission, which had declined to approve a proposed development. The Attorney-General sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the Commission had erred in drawing inferences from the facts presented.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the standard of review applicable when a court examines whether a non-lawyer decision-maker has erred in law in drawing inferences from facts. The Court needed to determine whether the correct approach was to consider whether the inference was open on the material before the decision-maker, or whether the court should substitute its own view of the facts for that of the decision-maker. The Court also needed to consider whether the error in law was sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside the decision.

The Court held that when reviewing a decision for errors of law, the court should consider whether the inference drawn by the decision-maker was open on the material before them. The Court emphasised that the standard of review is not the same as the standard applied by the decision-maker, and that the court should not substitute its own view of the facts for that of the decision-maker. The Court further held that the error of law must be sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside the decision. In this case, the Court found that the error of law was not sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside the decision of the Commission.

The Court's decision clarified the standard of review applicable when a court seeks to determine whether a non-lawyer decision-maker has erred in law in drawing inferences from facts. The Court's emphasis on the importance of considering whether the inference was open on the material before the decision-maker is likely to have significant implications for future cases involving judicial review of decisions made by non-lawyer decision-makers.