Aurukun Bauxite Development Pty Ltd v State of Queensland

In this case, Aurukun Bauxite Development Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by the State of Queensland regarding the development of the Aurukun project, as defined under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The applicants contested the State's decision to select another corporation to develop the project and its subsequent decision to enter into an Aurukun agreement with a subsidiary of that corporation. These decisions were pivotal, as they were conditions for eligibility to apply for a development licence, which the Minister could grant. The State applied to dismiss the application, arguing the decisions were not reviewable under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and that the delay in filing the application was unjustifiable.

The court had to determine whether the decisions made by the State were indeed made "under an enactment" and if they constituted "conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision." Additionally, the court needed to examine the procedural fairness of the selection process and whether the privative clause in the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) had any bearing on the applicants' ability to seek review. The applicants argued that the State failed to provide procedural fairness during the selection process. However, the court considered the substantial delay in filing the application, which was 22 months after the selection decision and 17 months after the decision to contract. The applicants had believed a privative clause prevented review but did not file the application until three months after it was repealed.

The court held that the decisions were indeed reviewable under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). However, the application was dismissed due to the significant delay in filing, which the court deemed unjustifiable. The court concluded that the delay would prejudice the State, which had already entered into a contract with another corporation. The court also found that the applicants' substantive case regarding procedural fairness was not strong enough to warrant an exception to the dismissal on the basis of delay. Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay the State's costs of the proceeding.