ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT)
A short factsheet on ACAT: its establishing Act, the eleven tribunals it consolidated in 2009, its merits-review function, and how it differs from judicial review by the ACT Supreme Court.
Learning outcomes
- State ACAT's establishing Act and identify the eleven former ACT tribunals and boards it consolidated from 2009.
- Explain the difference between ACAT's merits review and judicial review of ACT decisions by the Supreme Court.
- Explain why ACAT is not a prosecuting authority.
Act: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT).1
Established: Act passed 2008; ACAT began operating on 2 February 2009, consolidating eleven former ACT tribunals and boards — including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Discrimination Tribunal, the Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal — into a single body.
Purpose: ACAT reviews the merits of a wide range of ACT government decisions, and separately hears civil disputes (small claims, tenancy, discrimination complaints referred to it, and occupational discipline matters). It is the ACT's equivalent of NSW's NCAT and WA's SAT: a single super-tribunal built by amalgamation rather than one Act's free-standing grant of review power.
Powers conferred under the Act
Like NCAT and SAT, ACAT does not derive jurisdiction from one general provision. Instead, dozens of separate enabling Acts each confer jurisdiction over specific kinds of ACT decisions. Where ACAT does have jurisdiction, it conducts merits review: the tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and can substitute its own decision, rather than merely assessing whether the original decision was lawfully made. An ACAT decision can itself be appealed, on a question of fact or law, to an ACAT appeal panel within 28 days.
A student should not assume ACAT's merits review is the same thing as judicial review of an ACT decision. Judicial review — asking whether a decision was lawfully made, not whether it was correct — is conducted by the ACT Supreme Court, not ACAT.
Is it a prosecuting authority?
No. ACAT is a tribunal that reviews decisions and resolves civil disputes; it has no role prosecuting criminal offences.
How it relates to the other ACT bodies
ACAT is where several other bodies in this overlay set end up: the ACT Human Rights Commission refers unresolved discrimination complaints to ACAT for a binding determination, and the Public Trustee and Guardian is typically appointed guardian or financial manager by an ACAT order, not by the Public Trustee and Guardian itself.
No specific leading case on ACAT's jurisdiction is cited here.
Self-check
- Have I checked the specific enabling Act rather than assuming ACAT has jurisdiction over a given ACT decision by default?
- Have I kept ACAT's merits review separate from judicial review by the Supreme Court?
- Have I identified where ACAT's decisions or appointments connect to the ACT Human Rights Commission and the Public Trustee and Guardian, rather than treating ACAT in isolation?