Re Tooheys Limited v the Minister of Business and Consumer Affairs (1981) 54 FLR 421

Tooheys Brewery wanted to buy a special palletising machine from the USA. They arranged it to be imported via a third-party importer.
Under the import legislation, the Minister was able to make a determination so that they would pay less to import the item, if it was not an item that was available in Australia.
An application was made on behalf of Tooheys for the item.
The Minister responded by letter to Tooheys application refusing to make a determination that the item was unavailable in Australia, as Tooheys hadn’t contacted other suppliers to see if they could make such a machine.
Therefore, the importer was charged a higher tariff, a cost which was passed onto Tooheys.
Tooheys sought to appeal the decision. The Act allowed an “aggrieved party” to appeal against an administrative decision.
The Minister argued grounds including that no decision had been made; that if it had, the decision was not of an administrative character; and Tooheys was not the aggrieved party, as it had been the importer who had paid the duty.

In regards to (1), the Court held that the letter showed that a final decision had been made by the Minister. Therefore, the answer to whether a decision had been made was “yes”.
In regards to (2), the Court held that the phrase “administrative character” should be interpreted widely.
A decision is of administrative character where it applies a law to a particular circumstance, as opposed to being of legislative character, where it changes the scope of the law.
In this case, the decision was of an administrative character.
In regards to (3), the Court again held this should be interpreted widely.
An “aggrieved person” did not necessarily need to be someone who had a direct legal interest in the proceedings (e.g. would get $$ directly from the judgment). It was sufficient that it would affect their rights indirectly (e.g. if the importer got the $$ back, the importer would then issue a refund to Toohey).
Therefore Toohey succeeded and had the right to appeal the decision.

(1) “The phrase “decision of an administrative character” is one of wide import. The Review Act confers on citizens important procedural rights against executive action under Commonwealth enactments … the phrase should be given a wide construction and application. It is undesirable to attempt to define in advance its full scope and operation.” (Ellicott J)
(2) “The general distinction between legislation and the execution of legislation is that legislation determines the content of a law as a rule of conduct or a declaration as to power, right or duty, whereas executive authority applies the law in particular cases.” (Ellicott J quoting Latham CJ in the Commonwealth v. Grunseit)
(3) “The words “a person who is aggrieved” should not in my view be given a narrow construction. They should not, therefore, be confined to persons who can establish that they have a legal interest at stake in the making of the decision. It is unnecessary and undesirable to discuss the full import of the phrase… I am satisfied however that it at least covers a person who can show a grievance which will be suffered as a result of the decision complained of beyond that which he or she has as an ordinary member of the public… It may affect him or her in the conduct of a business or may, as I think is the case here, affect his or her rights against third parties.” (Ellicott J)