Scott v. Pham

In Scott v. Pham, the applicant, a prisoner, sought an order from the Supreme Court of Queensland to obtain reasons from the respondent, a doctor appointed under the Corrective Services Act, for declining to refer the applicant to a specific specialist medical practitioner. The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondent's decision to not refer the applicant to the specialist was an administrative decision made under an enactment, thereby requiring the respondent to provide reasons under the Judicial Review Act. The applicant relied on sections 3, 266, and 284 of the Corrective Services Act, but the Court found that these provisions neither required nor authorised the decision to decline the referral.

The Court's reasoning involved a two-pronged test to determine if a decision was made under an enactment, as outlined in Griffiths University v Tang. Both criteria needed to be met: the decision must be required or authorised by the enactment, and it must confer, alter, or otherwise affect legal rights or obligations. The Court held that none of the statutory provisions cited by the applicant satisfied these criteria. Section 3 was too general, section 266 concerned obligations of the Chief Executive rather than the function of a medical practitioner, and section 284, while more explicit, did not pertain to the decision to decline a referral. The Court concluded that the respondent's decision did not derive from the enactment, as it did not affect any legal rights or obligations.

As a result, the applicant's application was deemed to have no prospect of success and was summarily terminated. The Court ordered that the application would be dismissed, and no reasons would be provided by the respondent for the decision not to refer the applicant to the specialist practitioner.