National Trust of Australia (ACT) v ACT Heritage Council (Administrative Review)

The National Trust of Australia (ACT) sought judicial review of a decision by the ACT Heritage Council. The Trust contended that the Council had made an error in calculating the public consultation period for a proposed amendment to the ACT Heritage Register, resulting in the Trust's submission being deemed late. The Trust argued that it should not be penalised for the Council's error, particularly since it had relied on the date provided by the Council in its invitation to make comments. The ACT Heritage Council defended its decision, maintaining that it had no jurisdiction to recalculate the consultation period. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was reviewable and, if so, whether the Trust's application for review should be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to review the Council's decision regarding the calculation of the public consultation period. The court had to decide whether the statutory provisions themselves and the real-world context should be taken into account when determining time limits, or whether a text-based approach to interpreting legislation should be strictly adhered to. The court also needed to determine whether there was ambiguity or a question of construction in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Heritage Act 2004, and whether the statutory provisions were clear and unambiguous in their application.

The court held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the application for review. It found that the statutory provisions were clear and unambiguous, and that there was no ambiguity or question of construction in interpreting the relevant sections of the Heritage Act 2004. The court emphasised that the tribunal's role was to apply the statutory provisions as written, without considering the real-world context or potential errors made by the Council. It concluded that since the statutory provisions were clear and unambiguous, the tribunal could not recalculate the public consultation period or penalise the Council for its error. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter. The court held that the statutory provisions were clear and unambiguous, and that the tribunal could not consider the real-world context or potential errors made by the Council when determining time limits. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to a text-based approach to interpreting legislation, and found no ambiguity or question of construction in interpreting the relevant sections of the Heritage Act 2004. As a result, the Trust's application for review was dismissed, and the Council's decision remained valid.