The Court held that a reporting entity's decision to terminate wagering services to a customer, even if made under s 92(4) of the AML/CTF Act, is not a decision of an administrative character amenable to judicial review for jurisdictional error. Applying NEAT Domestic Trading v AWB and Patole v Child & Adolescent Health Service, the Court found that s 92(4) grafted a power onto the respondent's existing contractual rights rather than conferring a public administrative power, and the respondent was not exercising a regulatory function of government. The Court also held that a conditional appearance under O 12 r 6 of the Rules is only available to challenge personal jurisdiction (amenability to service), not subject-matter jurisdiction, though the Court proceeded to determine the substantive objection on a summary basis. The questions of whether s 92(5) of the AML/CTF Act ousted review jurisdiction and the interaction between s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act and the AD(JR) Act were expressly left unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members.