Long Service Leave (Portable Schemes) (Security Industry) Amendment Act 2012 (ACT)

The case involves an appeal against the decision of the Minister for Justice to declare certain work as not being "security work" under the Long Service Leave (Portable Schemes) (Security Industry) Amendment Act 2012 (ACT). The appellants, who were security guards, challenged the Minister's decision on the basis that the Minister failed to consider relevant material and had failed to give them an opportunity to make submissions. The respondents, the Minister and the Australian Capital Territory, argued that the Minister's decision was lawful and within his discretion.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to declare certain work as not being security work was lawful. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Minister had acted outside the scope of his discretion or failed to consider relevant material in making his decision. The court also had to consider whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable and whether the appellants had been denied procedural fairness.

The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and within his discretion. The court found that the Minister had considered relevant material and had given the appellants an opportunity to make submissions. The court also held that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable and that the appellants had not been denied procedural fairness. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Minister's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that the appellants had not established any grounds for setting aside the decision. The court also awarded costs against the appellants.