Miller v Goldfields Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation

The matter before the court involved Mr Miller, a member of the Mirning Native Title Claim, who sought funding for legal advice and representation from Goldfields Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation (GLSC). Mr Miller opposed the Mirning Native Title Claim and believed he was entitled to representation for his individual interests. GLSC, however, did not consider Mr Miller's letter of 31 July 2013 to be a formal funding application. Instead, it was a preliminary communication. The dispute centred on whether Mr Miller could initiate an application for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) concerning a decision about funding that had not yet been formally applied for or decided upon.

The central legal issue was whether Mr Miller could be considered aggrieved by a decision for the purposes of the ADJR Act, given that he had not yet formally applied for funding and no decision had been made. The court had to determine whether the absence of a formal application and the subsequent decision on that application constituted a decision to which the ADJR Act applied. This hinged on whether Mr Miller's preliminary communication was sufficient to establish the requisite decision-making process for judicial review.

The court found that Mr Miller could not be considered aggrieved by a decision that had not yet been made. The absence of a formal application meant that there was no decision to review under the ADJR Act. The court emphasised that the ADJR Act requires a specific decision to be challenged, and in this case, no such decision existed. The respondent's correspondence made it clear that the preliminary communication was not deemed a formal application for funding, and until a formal application was submitted, there could be no decision for judicial review. Consequently, the court held that the application was not competent.

The court dismissed Mr Miller's application for judicial review. The preliminary communication made by Mr Miller's solicitors did not constitute a formal application for funding, and thus, there was no decision to review. The court held that without a formal application and a corresponding decision, Mr Miller could not be considered aggrieved for the purposes of the ADJR Act.