Taking a government decision on review under PAJA starts with a distinction that is easy to overlook. A review is not simply an appeal because you disagree with the result. It asks whether the decision meets the legal requirements governing administrative action.
The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, commonly called PAJA, gives effect to the constitutional right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
For someone facing a refused permit, a cancelled benefit or an unsuccessful regulatory application, those words can feel abstract. The practical questions are more familiar: did the correct person decide, were the applicable rules followed, and did you have a fair opportunity to explain your position?
A review provides a way to test those questions. Before approaching a court, however, you need to identify the decision, understand the available procedures and act within the relevant time limits.
Step 1: Identify the decision and who made it
Start by writing down exactly what happened.
Record the decision, the person or body responsible, the date it was communicated and how it affects you. Include any reference number and the date on which the decision is supposed to take effect.
“Government treated me unfairly” describes a concern. “The department refused my licence application on this date” identifies something that can be investigated.
Keep the original decision letter or email, together with the application and supporting documents. These establish what you asked for and what the administrator was given.
Check whether PAJA is the correct route
Not every dispute involving government is administrative action under PAJA.
The nature of the power matters. Some executive, legislative and judicial functions are excluded, while other disputes follow their own legal procedures. A private body exercising a public power may also raise administrative law questions.
The Department of Justice’s explanation of administrative action outlines these distinctions.
For example, a dispute with a public employer should not automatically be treated as a PAJA review merely because the employer is a government department.
Identifying the correct route early helps avoid approaching the wrong forum or relying on the wrong deadline.
Separate the final decision from earlier steps
An application may pass through several officials before a decision is communicated.
Establish whether the document you received is a recommendation, a request for further information or the decision you intend to challenge.
Your chronology should distinguish these stages. Include what each official said and attach the relevant correspondence rather than relying on memory.
Step 2: Request written reasons and relevant documents
A refusal letter may state the outcome without explaining how it was reached.
If the reasons are unclear or have not been provided, request them promptly. Identify the decision and ask for an explanation that connects the applicable requirements with the facts of your application.
A useful request might ask:
- Which legal provision authorised the decision?
- Which requirements were considered?
- What information supported the conclusion?
- Why were your submissions unsuccessful?
- Is an internal appeal or other remedy available?
The aim is to understand the decision, rather than repeat that you disagree with it.
Know the time limits for requesting reasons
Under section 5 of PAJA, a person whose rights have been materially and adversely affected, and who has not been given reasons, may request written reasons within 90 days of becoming aware of the action or when they could reasonably have been expected to become aware of it.
The administrator must generally provide adequate written reasons within 90 days after receiving the request, subject to the Act’s qualifications.
Keep proof that the request was delivered. Record the recipient and follow up in writing if necessary.
The Department of Justice’s guidance on written reasons explains that an answer should help the affected person understand why the decision was made. Merely repeating the outcome may not achieve that.
Reasons and the record serve different purposes
Reasons explain the administrator’s conclusion. The record contains material connected with reaching it.
You can ask for relevant documents, but a request for reasons is not automatically a request for the entire record. Access may involve a separate procedure, and court review proceedings have their own arrangements for obtaining the record.
Keep the documents already in your possession and identify what appears to be missing. An assessment referring to an undisclosed report, for example, gives your adviser a specific issue to investigate.
Step 3: Complete the available internal remedies
Many administrative systems provide an objection, reconsideration or appeal before a matter reaches court.
PAJA generally requires available internal remedies provided by law to be exhausted. A court may grant an exemption on application where exceptional circumstances exist and the interests of justice justify it.
An internal process can sometimes resolve a factual error or missing document more quickly than litigation.
It may also produce a clearer explanation of the dispute if court proceedings remain necessary.
Follow the prescribed procedure
Check who receives the appeal, which form is required and when it must arrive.
A general complaint to a customer service address may not count as the required internal appeal. Nor should you assume that an official’s promise to “look into it” protects your position.
Keep copies of the submission, attachments and acknowledgement of receipt.
If you cannot meet a requirement, ask promptly whether an extension or late submission procedure exists. Do not treat silence as permission to file late.
Make the internal challenge specific
Explain what you believe went wrong and support it with documents.
For example, if the refusal states that you did not submit a certificate, attach the certificate and the email showing when it was provided.
If the decision applies a requirement you believe does not govern your application, identify the discrepancy clearly.
Specific submissions make it easier for the reviewing official to address the problem and create a useful record of what you raised.
Step 4: Identify the legal ground for review
A review needs more than dissatisfaction. It needs an identified legal basis supported by the facts.
The Department of Justice’s judicial review guidance explains grounds including lack of authority, procedural defects, bias, errors of law and the consideration of irrelevant information. Rationality and reasonableness also matter.
Ask whether the procedure was fair
Depending on the circumstances, fairness may require notice of the proposed action and a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
It does not mean that every decision requires a trial or an oral hearing. What fairness requires depends on the matter.
The Department of Justice’s procedural fairness guidance explains the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond.
If you believe you were denied that opportunity, explain what you would have submitted and why it mattered.
Review can concern the substance as well as the process
It is too narrow to describe review as checking procedure alone.
An administrator might follow the formal steps but still misunderstand the law, act for an improper purpose or reach a decision that fails the applicable rationality or reasonableness standard.
However, a court does not simply choose the result it prefers. A debatable decision is not necessarily unlawful.
The task is to connect the evidence with a recognised review ground.
Step 5: Act without unreasonable delay
Time is often decisive in administrative law.
PAJA requires review proceedings to be instituted without unreasonable delay and ordinarily within 180 days. The starting point depends on whether internal remedies apply and, where none do, the statutory rules concerning awareness of the action and its reasons.
Section 9 permits extensions in specified circumstances.
Do not treat 180 days as permission to wait
The requirement to avoid unreasonable delay matters alongside the outer time limit.
A tender may be implemented, a development may begin or another person may act in reliance on the decision. Delay can complicate both the challenge and the remedy sought.
Keep a separate list of every relevant date. Internal appeal deadlines may be much shorter than the review period.
Do not assume that requests for documents, informal discussions or repeated complaints automatically suspend the time for bringing proceedings. Obtain advice on the correct calculation.
Urgency and review are separate questions
Starting a challenge does not necessarily stop the decision from taking effect.
If implementation could cause immediate harm, ask whether interim court relief is needed. An urgent application has its own requirements and needs evidence explaining why the matter cannot wait.
Raise urgency early rather than after the decision has already been implemented.
Step 6: Ask for a remedy that addresses the problem
Success on review does not always mean receiving the permit, benefit or approval originally requested.
The court may set aside the decision and require the administrator to reconsider it lawfully. Substitution and compensation are reserved for exceptional cases under PAJA.
Explain what needs to happen next
Tell your adviser what practical outcome you need.
Do you require a fresh decision, a fair opportunity to make submissions or temporary protection while the dispute is resolved?
Where the complaint concerns a failure to decide, the requested relief may need to address that delay rather than set aside a decision that does not exist.
A remedy should fit the legal problem and remain workable.
Allow for the possibility of reconsideration
If the matter returns to the administrator, a lawful reconsideration may still produce an unfavourable outcome.
That possibility is worth understanding before litigation begins. Review protects the requirements governing the decision, rather than guaranteeing that the applicant receives their preferred result.
Prepare a clear file before seeking advice
An organised file helps an attorney assess the route, deadlines and prospects more efficiently.
Include:
- The decision and proof of when you received it.
- Your application and supporting documents.
- Relevant correspondence and notices.
- Requests for reasons and the responses.
- Internal appeal documents and outcomes.
- A dated chronology.
- A short explanation of the harm and outcome sought.
Separate what the documents establish from what you suspect. If you believe relevant information was ignored, identify the submission and explain its significance.
PAJA gives public decisions a legal standard
Government bodies may make difficult decisions, including decisions people strongly oppose.
PAJA requires qualifying administrative action to meet standards of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness. Review is the means of asking a court to test those standards.
The strongest starting point is practical: identify the action, obtain its explanation, follow the available procedures and protect the deadlines.
That turns a general complaint into a dispute that can be assessed properly.
