Dardak v Minister for Regional Services, Territories & Local Government [2001] FCA 21

Dardak v Minister for Regional Services, Territories & Local Government [2001] FCA 21

The approval of the tender was not a decision made under an enactment for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth), the Regulations and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines imposed general obligations or standards and facilitated capacity to enter a contract, but did not authorise or require the particular tender approval or give it statutory force. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction under the ADJR Act to deal with the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for Judicial Review and Motion for Extension of Time Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Motions: Applicants' Motion to Extend Time and Respondents' Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) because the impugned tender approval was not a decision made under an enactment; no formal orders were made except directions for further listing.
Legal Topics
['administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'decision to Which the Act Applies' 'decision Made Under an Enactment' 'extension of Time' 'commonwealth Procurement' 'accrued Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'government Procurement' 'contract Law'] ['administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'decision to Which the Act Applies' 'decision Made Under an Enactment' 'extension of Time' 'commonwealth Procurement' 'accrued Jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Application for Judicial Review and Motion for Extension of Time Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Motions: Applicants' Motion to Extend Time and Respondents' Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the approval of the tender of Murray River North Pty Ltd for construction of residential dwellings on Christmas Island was a reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).' 'Whether any such decision was made under an enactment, namely the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth), the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.' 'Whether time should be extended under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), or whether s 11(4) applied.' 'Whether any contract claim could remain within the pendant or accrued jurisdiction of the Court if the ADJR Act claim failed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The approval of the tender was not a decision made under an enactment for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth), the Regulations and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines imposed general obligations or standards and facilitated capacity to enter a contract, but did not authorise or require the particular tender approval or give it statutory force. The Court therefore had no jurisdiction under the ADJR Act to deal with the application.

Court Disposition

The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) because the impugned tender approval was not a decision made under an enactment; no formal orders were made except directions for further listing.

Orders

  • ['The matter be listed for further directions before Hill J at 9.30 am on 16 February 2001.']