Ishiyama v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer; Baxter v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer; Hunt v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer

In the case of Ishiyama v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer; Baxter v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer; Hunt v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer, the applicants sought a statement of reasons for decisions made by the Chief Health Officer under the Public Health Act 2005 (Qld). The applicants argued that they were entitled to such reasons under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA). The legal issues before the court were whether the Chief Health Officer's decisions were of an administrative character, as required by the JRA, or whether they were of a legislative character, which would exclude them from the right to reasons. The applicants contended that the decisions were administrative and therefore subject to the JRA's requirement for reasons, while the respondents argued that the decisions were legislative and thus not subject to this requirement.

The court considered the nature of the decisions made by the Chief Health Officer and whether they fell within the definition of "administrative character" as provided in the JRA. The court referred to the High Court's decision in Commonwealth v Grunseit, which established that the term "administrative character" excludes decisions of a legislative or judicial character. The court further noted that in distinguishing between administrative and legislative acts, regard must be had to various indicia. The court found that the decisions in question were of an administrative character, as they involved the exercise of statutory powers to make specific directions under the Public Health Act, rather than setting policy or law for the future.

Accordingly, the court held that the Chief Health Officer's decisions were of an administrative character and therefore subject to the JRA's requirement for reasons. The court dismissed the interlocutory applications in each proceeding, finding that the applicants were entitled to a statement of reasons for the Chief Health Officer's decisions.