Aurukun Shire Council v CEO, Liquor Gaming & Racing in Dept Of Treasury

The appeal concerned the interpretation of section 120 of the *Liquor Act 1992* (Qld) and its application to the Aurukun Shire Council. The dispute arose from the Council's decision to refuse to grant a liquor licence to a licensee, which the CEO of Liquor, Gaming and Racing sought to have reviewed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Council argued that the CEO had no power to seek such a review, as the decision to refuse a licence was not a "decision" within the meaning of the *Judicial Review Act 1991* (Qld). The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the CEO's decision to seek a review of the Council's refusal to grant a liquor licence constituted a "decision" for the purposes of the *Judicial Review Act 1991* (Qld). This required the Court to consider the nature of the CEO's power under the *Liquor Act 1992* (Qld) and whether it was a decision that could be subjected to judicial review. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the CEO's action was an exercise of administrative power that affected the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of the licensee.

The High Court held that the CEO's decision to seek a review was not a "decision" within the meaning of the *Judicial Review Act 1991* (Qld). Their Honours reasoned that the CEO's power to request a review was a preliminary step in a process, not a final determination of rights or interests. The power was directed towards initiating a review by QCAT, which would then make the substantive decision. Therefore, the CEO's action did not have the character of a decision that could be challenged under the *Judicial Review Act 1991* (Qld).

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Supreme Court of Queensland were set aside.