Y & Anor v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority & Anor; Kamha v APRA & Anor

The applicants, Y and another (Y & Anor), and Kamha (collectively, the applicants), sought judicial review of decisions made by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Commonwealth of Australia (the respondents). The dispute concerned APRA's decision to refuse to grant a licence to conduct superannuation business to a proposed superannuation fund, the "Australian Superannuation Fund," and its subsequent decision to refuse to grant a licence to operate a superannuation fund to another proposed fund, the "Australian Superannuation Fund No. 2." The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether APRA had acted unlawfully in refusing to grant the licences, and whether APRA's decisions were affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicants contended that APRA had failed to consider relevant matters and had taken into account irrelevant considerations when making its decisions, thereby breaching the *Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993* (Cth) and the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth). The applicants also argued that APRA had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, dismissed the applicants' appeals. Their Honours found that APRA had acted within its statutory powers and had not committed jurisdictional error. The Court held that APRA was entitled to consider the financial viability and prudential soundness of the proposed funds, and that its assessment of these matters was a legitimate exercise of its discretion. The Court also found that APRA had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions, and that the applicants' arguments regarding the consideration of irrelevant matters and the failure to consider relevant matters were unfounded. The Court affirmed that APRA's role is to ensure the prudential soundness of the superannuation industry, and that its decisions must be based on a proper assessment of the risks involved.

The appeals were dismissed.