principles of administrative law ...
PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ....................................................... 10 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ............................................................................................. 10 THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 11 The rule of law ..................................................................................................... 11 Executive accountability – responsible government ............................................ 12 The separation of powers ..................................................................................... 12 JURISPRUDENTIAL BASIS ........................................................................................... 12 Ultra vires ............................................................................................................ 12 Natural justice, administrative justice and procedural fairness.......................... 13 SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW .......................................................................... 13 Recognition of the limitations of ministerial responsibility ................................. 13 Evolution of the new administrative law.............................................................. 13 INTRODUCTION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ......................................................... 15 HIGH COURT JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... 15 FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION ................................................................................ 16 STATE & TERRITORY COURTS .................................................................................. 16 JUSTICIABILITY AT COMMON LAW ............................................................................. 16 DELEGATED LEGISLATION ............................................................................... 16 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION................................................................................... 17 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION ................................................. 17 Publication and retrospectivity ............................................................................ 17 Tabling ................................................................................................................. 18 Disallowance........................................................................................................ 18 Limits on delegated power to legislate ................................................................ 18 Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 (NSW) ............................................................ 18 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION ........................................................ 19 Non compliance with formal requirements .......................................................... 19 Simple excess of power ........................................................................................ 19 Inconsistency or repugnancy ............................................................................... 19 Improper purpose................................................................................................. 20 Unreasonableness ................................................................................................ 20 Lack of proportionality ........................................................................................ 20 Uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 21 Sub-delegation ..................................................................................................... 21 The regulate/prohibit distinction ......................................................................... 21 “As if enacted” clauses........................................................................................ 22 Severance ............................................................................................................. 22 THE RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS ...................................................... 23 NATURAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................................... 23 Effect of breach of the rules of procedural fairness ............................................ 24 STAGES AT WHICH PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS SHOULD BE AFFORDED ........................... 34 Investigations and preliminary decision-making (inquiries/ reports) ................. 35 Decisions for which a statutory right of hearing or appeal lies .......................... 36 THE HEARING RULE ................................................................................................... 25 Implication principle............................................................................................ 25 CONTENT OF THE HEARING RULE .............................................................................. 28 The right to know matters that will be considered by the decision-maker .......... 28 Page 1 of 121
Disclosure ............................................................................................................ 29 The right to make submissions ............................................................................. 29 A right to cross-examine and applicability of rules of evidence .......................... 29 A right to legal representation ............................................................................. 29 A right to reasons ................................................................................................. 30 LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS ..................................................................................... 30 QUALIFICATIONS TO THE RULE: POLICY AND POLITICAL DECISIONS .......................... 36 EXCLUSION OF THE HEARING RULE ........................................................................... 37 By statutory authorities ........................................................................................ 37 Non-application of the rule .................................................................................. 38 THE RULE AGAINST BIAS (MEMO JUDEX) .................................................................. 42 The rule at common law....................................................................................... 42 TESTS OF BIAS ........................................................................................................... 43 Reasonable suspicion/apprehension of bias ........................................................ 43 Real likelihood of bias ......................................................................................... 44 Merger of the two tests......................................................................................... 45 Actual bias ........................................................................................................... 45 Collegiate decision-making ................................................................................. 46 THE NO EVIDENCE RULE ............................................................................................ 49 OTHER QUASI-RULES OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS ...................................................... 52 The duty to give reasons ...................................................................................... 52 The duty to initiate inquiries ................................................................................ 52 ULTRA VIRES .......................................................................................................... 55 SIMPLE/NARROW ULTRA VIRES ................................................................................. 55 Substantive UV (Is there a power to act?) ........................................................... 55 Implied UV ........................................................................................................... 56 Procedural UV (Has the condition precedent to power been fulfilled?) ............. 56 EXTENDED/BROAD ULTRA VIRES ............................................................................... 58 ABUSE OF POWER ...................................................................................................... 58 (i) Abuse of discretionary power generally ......................................................... 58 (ii) Bad faith/improper purpose ........................................................................... 59 (iii) Relevant/irrelevant considerations ............................................................... 60 (iv) Lack of proper consideration ........................................................................ 62 Unreasonableness ................................................................................................ 63 Unreasonableness & lack of proportionality....................................................... 64 Unreasonableness & duty to inquire ................................................................... 64 Uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 64 No evidence .......................................................................................................... 65 FAILURE TO EXERCISE POWER ................................................................................... 65 Fettering of discretion (bias by predetermination) .............................................. 65 Inflexible application of policy ............................................................................ 66 Acting under dictation.......................................................................................... 67 Sub-delegation ..................................................................................................... 68 Estoppel................................................................................................................ 69 JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ................................................................................... 70 ERRORS OF FACT/LAW ............................................................................................... 70 TRADITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ...................................................... 74
Page 2 of 121
WANT/LACK OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. 74 EXCESS OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 75 WRONGFUL FAILURE/REFUSAL TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION ...................................... 76 CONSTRUCTIVE JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ................................................................... 77 JURISDICTIONAL FACT ............................................................................................... 77 EXCEPTION: ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ....................................... 78 EXTENDED JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ............................................................ 79 THE ANISMINIC REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND ............................................................... 79 Facts..................................................................................................................... 79 Commentary ......................................................................................................... 80 ANISMINIC IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................................... 82 NSW CA CASES POST-CRAIG ................................................................................... 84 STATUTORY RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: ADJR ACT ........................... 84 APPLICATION OF THE ACT ......................................................................................... 84 ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 85 There must be a “decision” ................................................................................. 85 The decision must be of an “administrative character”...................................... 85 Decision made “under an enactment” ................................................................ 87 Conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision .................................. 88 WHO MAY SEEK REVIEW UNDER THE ADJR ACT? .................................................... 91 GROUNDS OF REVIEW ................................................................................................ 92 Summary of statutory provisions ......................................................................... 92 REMEDIES UNDER THE ADJR ACT ............................................................................ 93 ADJR ACT REFORM .................................................................................................. 93 LIMITS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW .......................................................................... 93 PRIVATIVE CLAUSES ................................................................................................. 93 Examples of privative clauses .............................................................................. 94 THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION ..................................................................... 94 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PRIVATIVE CLAUSES .................................................. 94 FINALITY CLAUSES.................................................................................................... 94 NO CERTIORARI CLAUSES (DECISION SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED) ........................... 94 LIMIT CLAUSES ......................................................................................................... 95 Time limit clauses ................................................................................................ 95 Clauses limiting the grounds of review................................................................ 96 FEDERAL PRIVATIVE CLAUSES .................................................................................. 96 PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY ..................................................................................... 96 Claims of public interest immunity ...................................................................... 96 Scope and nature of the immunity ........................................................................ 97 The balance of public interest .............................................................................. 97 Who can claim public interest immunity? ............................................................ 97 JUDICIAL REMEDIES ............................................................................................ 97 PREROGATIVE/CONSTITUTIONAL WRITS .................................................................... 97 Certiorari ............................................................................................................. 97 Prohibition ........................................................................................................... 98 AVAILABILITY OF RELIEF .......................................................................................... 98 STANDING TO SEEK THE PREROGATIVE WRITS ......................................................... 100 MANDAMUS ............................................................................................................ 100 Page 3 of 121
AVAILABILITY OF RELIEF ........................................................................................ 101 Must be a duty to be performed ......................................................................... 101 Duty must be a public one.................................................................................. 101 Duty must be lawful ........................................................................................... 101 DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 101 STANDING FOR MANDAMUS .................................................................................... 102 QUO WARRANTO ..................................................................................................... 102 EQUITABLE REMEDIES: INJUNCTIONS AND DECLARATIONS ..................................... 102 Standing to seek injunctions and declarations................................................... 102 Special interest test ............................................................................................ 103 Injunction ........................................................................................................... 106 Declaration ........................................................................................................ 106 Habeas Corpus .................................................................................................. 107 Damages ............................................................................................................ 107 MERITS REVIEW .................................................................................................. 108 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ................................................................... 108 SCOPE AND NATURE OF REVIEW .............................................................................. 109 Who may seek review at the AAT? ..................................................................... 110 AAT Powers ....................................................................................................... 111 Reasons for decisions......................................................................................... 112 AAT procedure ................................................................................................... 112 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL (NSW) .................................................... 113 OTHER REVIEW MECHANISMS ...................................................................... 114 ACCESS TO INFORMATION: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION .................... 114 Appeals of FOI application determinations ....................................................... 119 MALADMINISTRATION: OMBUDSMAN ........................................................ 119 LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................... 119 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................... 119 WHO CAN COMPLAIN?............................................................................................. 119 INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT ................................................................................................................................ 120 Objectives and consequences of an investigation .............................................. 120 References to the AAT, Federal Court and Judicial Review ............................. 120 CORRUPTION: ICAC............................................................................................ 120 Cases AG (Cth) v R (1957) 95 CLR 529 (Boilermakers’ Case) ............................................ 11 AG v Fulham Corp [1921] 1 Ch 440 ........................................................................... 40 AG v Great Eastern Railway Co (1877) 4 Ch D 735 ................................................... 40 AG v Smethwick Corp [1932] 1 Ch 562 ..................................................................... 40 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 ............................... 83 Anderton v Auckland City Ccl [1978] 1 NZLR 657 ................................................... 50 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 .................... 61 Annets v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 ...................................................................... 26 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) P/L v Cth (1977) 139 CLR 54.................... 52 ANU v Burns (1982) 43 ALR 25................................................................................. 70 Arthur Yates & Co P/L v Veg. Seeds Committee (1945) 72 CLR 37 ......................... 18
Page 4 of 121
Ashbridge Invts Ltd v Min of Housing & LG [1965] 3 All ER 371 ........................... 37 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223...................................................................................................................... 47, 48 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 ..................... 38, 67, 71 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Cth (1980) 146 CLR 439 ................... 82, 85 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Min for Resources (1989) 19 ALD 70..... 86 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v SA (1990) 53 SASR 349 ......................... 87 Ballina Environment Soc Inc v Ballina Shire Ccl (1992) 78 LGERA 232 ................. 42 Balmain Assoc Inc v Planning Administrator for Leichhardt Ccl (1991) 25 NSWLR 615............................................................................................................................ 31 Bank of NSW v Cth (1948) 76 CLR 1......................................................................... 20 Banks v Transport Regulation Board (Vic) (1968) 119 CLR 222 ......................... 25, 81 BHP Petroleum P/L v Balfour (1987) 180 CLR 474 ................................................... 65 Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Transport and Regional Development (1996) 137 ALR 281............................................................................................................ 68 British Oxygen Co Ltd v Min of Technology [1971] AC 610 .................................... 51 Bruce Kerr P/L v Gosford CC (LEC, 17/12/96) .......................................................... 51 Byron Shire Business for the Future Inc v Byron Shire Ccl (1994) 84 LGERA 434 .. 39 Byron Shire Businesses for the Future Inc v Byron Ccl & Anor (1994) 83 LGERA 59 .................................................................................................................................. 42 Capello v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) .................................... 74 Carbines v Powell (1925) 36 CLR 88.......................................................................... 18 Carltona Ltd v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 .................................... 53 Ccl of Civil Service Unions v Min for Civil Service (1985) 1 AC 374....................... 32 Central Qld Speleological (Caving) Scty Inc v Central Qld Cement P/L (No 1) [1989] 2 Qd R 512 (The Ghost Bat Case) ........................................................................... 87 Cinnamond v British Airport Auth [1980] 1 WLR 582............................................... 32 City of London v Wood (1701) 88 ER 1592 ............................................................... 17 Clancy v Butchers’ Shop Employees Union (1904) 1 CLR 181 ................................. 76 Clements v Bull (1953) ................................................................................................ 17 Coles Supermarkets Aust P/L v Min for Urban Affairs & Planning (1996) 90 LGERA 341............................................................................................................................ 78 Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1997) 141 ALR 59 ................................... 16 Collector of Customs v Brian Lawlor Automotive P/L (1979) 24 ALR 307 .............. 92 Commonwealth v Grunseit (1943) 67 CLR 58 ...................................................... 68, 69 Congreve v Home Office [1976] 1 QB 629 ................................................................. 44 Cooney v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Ccl (1963) 114 CLR 582 ........................................ 87 Cooper v Wandsworth Bd of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 ..................................... 24 Corp of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission & Anor (2000) 199 CLR 135 ............................................................................................................ 60 Craig v SA (1995) 131 ALR 595 ........................................................................... 59, 61 Craig v South Australia (1995) 69 ALJR 873 ............................................................. 65 Dale v NSW Trotting Club Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 551 ............................................... 35 Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243 .................................................................... 34 Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759...................................................... 34 Drake v Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 1) (1979) 24 ALR 577 ........................... 94 Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 ................ 91 Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337 ................................................................... 30 Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 .............................................................................. 55 Edwards v Justice Guidice [1999] FCA 1836.............................................................. 59
Page 5 of 121
Emmott v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Ccl (1954) 3 LGRA 177 ........................................ 51 Essex County Ccl v Min for Housing & Local Govt (1967) 66 LGR 23 .................... 32 Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v Singapore Improvement Trust (1937) .......... 59 Evans v Donaldson (1909) 9 CLR 140 ........................................................................ 52 Evans v Friedman (1981) 53 FLR 229 ........................................................................ 12 Evans v Friemann (1983) 35 ALR 428 ........................................................................ 69 Ex parte Provera; Re Wilkinson (1952) 69 WN (NSW) 242....................................... 17 FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342............................................ 21, 29 Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Ccl [1961] AC 636 ...................... 20, 49 Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 ................................................. 72 Foster v Aloni [1951] VLR 481 ................................................................................... 20 Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87 ............................ 51 Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] AC 87 ............................ 36 Fraser Island Defenders Org Ltd v Hervey Bay Town Ccl [1983] 2 Qd R 72 ............ 87 Gourgand v Lawton (1982) 42 ALR 117 ..................................................................... 71 Gourgaud v Lawton (1982).......................................................................................... 67 Gouriet v Union of PO Workers [1978] AC 435 ......................................................... 85 Hamblin v Duffy (1981) 34 ALR 333 ......................................................................... 68 Hamblin v Duffy (1981) 50 FLR 308 ........................................................................... 12 Hannam v Bradford Corp [1970] 1 WLR 937 ............................................................. 35 Hardi v Woollahra Ccl (LEC, Cripps J, 17 Dec 1987) ................................................ 29 Haynes v Sutherland Shire Ccl (1966) 12 LGRA 220 ........................................... 41, 42 Hazel v Hammersmith & Fulham London Burough Ccl [1992] 2 AC 1 ..................... 41 Heatley v Tas Racing & Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487 ................... 29, 31 Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124 ................................................................................. 61 Hope v Bathurst City Ccl (1980) 144 CLR 1 .............................................................. 56 Hornsby Shire Ccl v Porter (1990) 19 NSWLR 716 ................................................... 30 Hott Holdings v Cresay [2002] HC ............................................................................. 36 Jeffs v NZ Dairy Production & Marketing Board [1967] AC 551 .............................. 33 Jet 60 Minute Cleaners P/L v Brownette [1981] 2 NSWLR 232 ................................ 78 K v Cullen (1994) 126 ALR 38 .................................................................................... 68 Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 .................................................................... 11 Kent County Ccl v Kingsway Investments (1970) 68 LGR 301 ................................. 20 Kerlberg v The City of Sale [1964] VR 383 ................................................................ 40 Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) ....................................... 47 King Gee Clothing Co P/L v Cth (1946) 71 CLR 184 ................................................ 19 Kioa v West (1985)................................................................................................. 22, 26 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 ............................................................................... 80 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Vanmeld P/L v Fairfield City Ccl (1999) 46 NSWLR 78............................................................................................................... 26 Ku-ring-gai MC v Arthur H Gillott P/L (1968) 15 LGRA 127 ................................... 84 Lee v Department of Education and Science (1967) ................................................... 42 Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v N. Sydney Municipal Ccl (1990) 69 LGRA 201............................................................................................................................ 49 Lewis v Heffer [1978] 1 WLR 1061 ............................................................................ 31 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 ........................................................................ 13 London and Clydeside.................................................................................................. 41 London County Ccl v AG [1902] AC 165 ................................................................... 40 Lynch v Brisbane City Ccl (1961) 104 CLR 353 ........................................................ 41 Mahon v Air NZ Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 193 ................................................................... 22
Page 6 of 121
Mahon v Air NZ Ltd [1984] AC 808 ........................................................................... 37 Maloney v NSW National Coursing Assoc Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 161 ...................... 35 Marnal Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council (1989) 68 LGRA 135 ................................. 47 McEldowney v Forde [1971] AC 632 ......................................................................... 17 Mersey Docks Trustees v Gibbs (1866) LR 1 HL 93 .................................................. 33 MIMA v Yusuf; Re Minister for Immigration [2001] HCA 30 (21 May 2001).......... 66 Min for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 ....................... 45 Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 [FC] ................................ 37 Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 ...................................... 30 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 ..... 39, 46, 47 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995).......................................... 75 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995) 57 FCR 194 .................... 56 Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) 4 ALD 661 .................... 68 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Waller (1985) 1 NSWLR 1 ................................................ 82 Moreton v Union Steamship Co of NZ Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402 ................................. 18 Municipal Ccl of Sydney v Campbell [1925] AC 338 ................................................ 44 Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1 .................................... 46 Northrop and Lockhart JJ in Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) ....................................................................................................................... 69 NSW Fish Authority v Phillips [1970] 1 NSWR 725............................................... 86 O’Keefe v City of Caulfield [1945] VLR 227 .............................................................. 18 O’Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Vic (1982) 153 CLR 1 .......................... 54 O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989)........................................................................................... 46 Ogle v Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41 ........................................................................... 86 Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27..................................................... 86 Pacific Outdoor Advertising P/L v N. Sydney Municipal Ccl (1979) 39 LGRA 207 . 40 Padfield v Min for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997 ............................. 83 Padfield v Min of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997 ............................... 45 Panagopoulos v Sec Dept of Veterans’ Affairs (1995) 60 FCR 524 ........................... 31 Parramatta City Council v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319 .............................................. 39 Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 .................. 59, 65 Potter v Melb & Metropolitan Tramways Board (1957) 98 CLR 337 ........................ 58 Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 .............................................................................. 39 Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 ................................................... 61 Public Service Board v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656.......................................... 28, 38 Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615 ................................. 69 R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air P/L (1965) 113 ALR 177 ................................... 52 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co P/L (1953) 88 CLR 100 .................................................................................................. 34 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 ................................................................................................. 58 R v BBC; Ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23 ....................................................... 81, 83 R v Booth ex p Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association (1978) .................. 60 R v Brecknock and Abergavenny Canal Co (1835) 3 Ad & E 217 ............................. 84 R v Camborne Justices; Ex parte Pearce [1955] 1 QB 41 ........................................... 35 R v City of Burnside; Ex parte Ipswich Properties P/L (1987) 46 SASR 81 .............. 82 R v City of Marion; Ex parte Independent Grocers’ Co-op Ltd (No 1) (1984) 37 SASR 415 ................................................................................................................ 87 R v City Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; ex p Datagin plc (1987) .......................... 81 R v Collins; ex p ACTU-Solo Pty Ltd (1976) ............................................................. 81
Page 7 of 121
R v Commissioner of Police (NT); Ex parte Holroyd (1965) 7 FLR 8 ....................... 77 R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; ex p Blackburn (1968) ...................... 84 R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407 ................. 58 R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore [1965] 1 QB 456 ...... 37 R v Electricity Commission; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171 ................................................................................................ 80 R v Electricity Commission; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171 ...................................................................................................... 80 R v Greater London Ccl; Ex parte Blackburn (1976) 1 WLR 550 .............................. 82 R v Greater Manchester Coroner; Ex parte Tal [1984] 3 WLR 643 .................... 65 R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 ............................. 57, 78 R v Justices of Surrey (1870) LR 5 QB 466 ................................................................ 82 R v Liverpool Corp; Ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Assoc [1972] 2 QB 299 ............................................................................................................................ 29, 82 R v Medical Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Gilmore [1957] 1 QB 574 ............................ 77 R v Morton [1892] 1 QB 39......................................................................................... 84 R v Murray and Cormie ex p Commonwwealth (1916) ............................................... 76 R v North ex p Oakey (1927)........................................................................................ 27 R v Port of London Authority; Ex parte Kynock Ltd (1919)1 KB 176 ....................... 51 R v Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230 .................................................................................... 34 R v Stafford Justices; Ex parte Stafford Corp (1940) 2 KB 33 ................................... 82 R v Stepney Corp [1902] 1 KB 317 ............................................................................. 52 R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 ................................... 33, 34 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Ccl (1981) 151 CLR 170 ................................. 18 R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal ex p Bott (1933) ............................... 60 R v West Coast Ccl; Ex parte The Strahan Motor Inn (1995) 87 LGERA 383 ........... 36 Randall v Northcote Corporation (1910) .................................................................... 83 Re Adams & Tax Agents’ Board (1976) 12 ALR 239 ................................................ 91 Re Akuhata-Brown v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1983) 5 ALD 289 . 93 Re Barlow (1861) 40 LJQB 271 .................................................................................. 84 Re Becker and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158 ............................. 93 Re Becker v Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158 ................................. 51 Re Drake and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 ................... 51 Re Drake and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1980) 2 ALD 634 ........ 92, 94 Re Locke; Ex parte Commissioner for Railways (1968) 87 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 430 ... 84 Re McHattan & Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 18 ALR 154............................ 93 Re Pergamon Press Ltd [1971] Ch 388........................................................................ 27 Re Pochi and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33 [AAT] ...................... 37 Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 ........................................................... 65 Re Randwick Municipal Ccl; Ex parte SF Bowser & Co (1927) 27 SR NSW 209l ... 41 Re Sneddon; Ex parte Grinham [1959] 61 SR (NSW) 862 ......................................... 18 Re the University of Sydney; Ex parte Forseter (1963) 63 SR (NSW) 723 ................ 53 Re Tully; Ex parte Wurth (1954) 55 SR (NSW) 47............................................... 57, 60 Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 .................................................................................... 23 Ricegrowers Cooperative Mills Ltd v Bannerman (1981) ........................................... 73 Ridge v Baldwin (1964) ............................................................................................... 82 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 .................................................................................. 25 Right to Life Assoc (NSW) Inc v Sec, Dept of Human Services & Health (Cth) (1995) 128 ALR 238...................................................................................................... 73, 87 Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 ............................................................................ 45
Page 8 of 121
Ross v Costigan (1982) 59 FLR 184 ............................................................................ 67 SA v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378 .............................................................................. 23 Salemi v Mackellar (No 2) (1977) 137 CLR 396 ........................................................ 29 SAT FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1997) 75 FCR 604 ................ 69 Schmidt v Sec. of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149 ........................................ 29 Scurr v Brisbane City Ccl (1973) 133 CLR 242 .................................................... 41, 42 Shanahan v Scott (1956) 96 CLR 245 ......................................................................... 18 Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (1975) 132 CLR 473 .................................. 59 Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 .............................. 83 Spence v Teece (1982) 61 FLR 68 ............................................................................... 12 Steeples v Derbyshire County Ccl [1985] 1 WLR 256................................................ 50 Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509 ............................ 34 Swan Hill Corp v Bradbury (1937) 56 CLR 746 ......................................................... 20 Tasker v Fullwood [1978] 1 NSWLR 20..................................................................... 41 Television Corp Ltd v Cth (1963) 109 CLR 59 ..................................................... 20, 49 Thompson v Randwick Municipal Ccl [1950] 81 CLR 87 .................................... 44, 47 Tooheys Ltd v Min for Business & Consumer Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 64 ................. 73 Tracey v Waverley Municipal Council (1959) 5 LGRA 7 ........................................... 53 Twist v Randwick Municipal Ccl (1976) 136 CLR 106 .......................................... 31 Videto v MIEA (1985) (No 2) ..................................................................................... 39 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 ................................... 54 Warringah Shire Ccl & Ors v Pittwater PC (1992) 26 NSWLR 491........................... 43 Williams v Melb Corp (1933) 49 CLR 142.................................................................. 48 Williams v Melbourne Corp (1933) 49 CLR 142 ........................................................ 19 Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 .................................................................................................................................. 11 Woolworths Ltd v Hawke (1998) 45 NSWLR 13 ....................................................... 77 Yusuf v Min for Imm & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 206 CLR 323 .......................... 60
Page 9 of 121
Principles of administrative law Introductory notes When answering administrative law questions, consider: 1. The decision maker-maybe they didn’t have the power 2. The decision making process 3. The decision-was it within power? Administrative law is about the making of administrative decisions. Not just decisions about Government (Executive) but domestic tribunals (Nongovernment bodies e.g. sporting clubs) Who has the power, where does the power lie? The rights the decisionary has in relation to decision makers. Concerned with various methods and processes that exist to ensure that power is exercised lawfully (fairness and legality). Legality means that there is power to act. However, there are rules of fairness additionally. All administrative decisions are subject to judicial review. Australian bureaucracies have resisted reforms to make them more responsive. External accountability measures are necessary. Senior administrators are formally answerable to responsible Ministers. Use of public money is subject to supervision by independent auditors. Ombudsmen are another from of non-political supervision. Royal Commission can also be used to scrutinize government administration. The powers of external investigative bodies are limited. They can only make recommendations. Whether their recommendations are implemented depends on how persuasive they are. Bureaucracy is subject to judicial control in so far as the legality of their bureaucratic behaviour is concerned. This can be justified on the basis of the separation of power. However: The same commitment to the separation of powers which justifies Australian courts having an ultimate monopoly over questions of law is in France the basis for the belief that the Executive should have monopoly over matters bureaucratic (including questions relating to the legality of bureaucratic behaviour) (Administrative Law at 22; see fn 27). Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986)
Page 10 of 121
Facts Held
! ! !
Minister’s decision to grant approval to aboriginal land claim Minister’s decision was struck down by the High Court as he did not take into relevant consideration He had not taken into account the interest a company had in this land (uranium)
Principle of rational humanness A rationality informed by consideration and compassion for the needs of human beings. Decision makers should give consideration to the needs of humans. CJ Hughes (US)-decisions need to have rational, probative thought. Lord Diplock Ex parte Moore: The probative evidence-decision makers must act on logically probative material. Lord Denning: legitimate expectation Justice Kirby: decision makers must only act reasonably and in good faith Principle of equal power Not a common principle, but people involved in ADR have written about. The decision maker has power-conferred or imposed. Most decision makers get their power from Acts of Parliament. 1st question is always: Is there power to act? The decision maker has superior power-power the decisionary doesn’t have. There is an inequality of bargaining power. The principle of equal power works on the principle that decision makers should act as if there were equal power between the parties. The Constitutional framework The rule of law Dicey contrasted the British and French systems for regulating bureaucracy in The Law of the Constitution, published in 1885. The ‘check’ on French bureaucracy was the bureaucracy itself. Dicey expounded the principles of the rule of law (Administrative Law at 23): • you can’t be punished unless you’ve broken the law • everyone is subject to the law • courts preserve individual rights Administrative tribunals are inferior to courts (Arthurs (1979) Rethinking Administrative Law cited in Administrative Law at 24).
Page 11 of 121
Tribunals must act intra vires – within power. Tribunals can’t hide behind clauses that oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts according to Arthurs. This is certainly the case in relation to the High Courts jurisdiction (sec 75(5) of the Constitution). Arthurs doubted whether judges were always in a better position to make decisions in specialized areas. Judicial review should ensure tribunals perform the tasks confided in them. Executive accountability – responsible government Responsible governments means Ministers are answerable to parliament. Officials function within a governmental framework and are responsible either to an institution or a person. Ministers aren’t held responsible for the actions of officials. However, they can be answerable for the actions of those officials. The separation of powers The separation of powers was entrenched by AG (Cth) v R (1957) 95 CLR 529 (Boilermakers’ Case). Each branch of governments acts a check on the other. There isn’t a rigid separation of powers in the states as there is at the federal level. However, the High Court’s decision in Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.strengthens the position of state courts (Administrative Law at 30; see fn 32). Implications of the separation of powers doctrine on admin law include: • a sharp distinction between the powers of tribunals and courts • non-administrative tribunals can’t make binding decisions – this restruction doesn’t apply in the same sense to administrative tribunals which are armed with the powers of the primary decision-maker • conferral of non-judicial functions on courts isn’t permitted whereas judges can be conferred with non-judicial capacity, for example to sit on a tribunal, provided this capacity doesn’t conflict with their judicial role (Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1) (Administrative Law at 31) • just as the executive shouldn’t interfere with the judiciary, the judiciary recognises that on questions of policy it should defer to the executive and legislature Jurisprudential basis Ultra vires
Page 12 of 121
An act must be within the power granted by the governing legislation to be valid. Otherwise, it is considered ‘beyond power’ or ultra vires. The principle of legality extends the doctrine of simple ultra vires. This principle incorporates considerations relating to: • the purposes underlying a decision • whether decision makers have taken account of relevant factors and ignored irrelevant factors in making a decision • whether decisions are reasonable, certain and based on evidence • whether discretion is used where it is given Natural justice, administrative justice and procedural fairness 1. Hearing rule-person has right to be heard before a decision is made (some exceptions exist) 2. There is a rule against bias. 3. The probative evidence rule-Diplok-decisions must be based on logically probative material Sources of administrative law Recognition of the limitations of ministerial responsibility Evolution of the new administrative law The outcome of the Kerr Committee’s 1971 inquiry into the rationalisation of administrative law was the Kerr report. The key features of this report included (Administrative Law at 56): • the establishment of a general administrative tribunal to review administrative decisions on their merits • codification and procedural reform of the system of judicial review • creation of an office of the Ombudsman to investigate matters of administration • establishment of a body to keep the new administrative mechanisms under observation and to monitor possible development in admin law and practice Theses recommendations were brought into effect by the: 1. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 •
•
Sections 5 – 7: grounds for challenging administrative decisions ! Sec 5 applies where decisions have already been made ! Sec 6 mirrors sec 5 but applies where decisions are in the process of being made ! Sec 7 deals with cases where an administrator has failed to act when they were under a duty to act Sec 3: ADJR applies to decisions of an administrative character ! The ADJR isn’t intended to authorise review of delegated legislation as this isn’t considered of an “administrative character” (Hamblin v Duffy
Page 13 of 121
•
•
(1981) 50 FLR 308; and Evans v Friedman (1981) 53 FLR 229) (Administrative Law at 57) ! However, delegated legislation may be reviewed on the ground that it is ultra vires its authorising Act (Spence v Teece (1982) 61 FLR 68) (Administrative Law at 57) Improvements introduced by the ADJR: ! it’s possible to get reasons for almost any decision reviewable under the ADJR ! procedure/remedies are simpler than at common law ! applications for review are made to the Fed Court rather than the High Court – making review more accessible ! Fed Court handles cases expeditiously Decision of GG are excluded from the ADJR – review is only available at common law
2. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 •
• • • • •
•
Established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – empowered to review specified exercise of discretion (see Sch to AAT Act; and relevant legislation which refers decisions for review to the AAT) AAT stands in the shoes of the decision-maker – its decision can be substituted for that of the original decision-maker AAT can make decisions based on their merits Rules of standing are broad – provided the decision for review falls within the scope of the AAT Act Reasons for decision are available where AAT Act applies Established the Administrative Review Council – it’s overall function is to supervise the operation of the system of administrative law as a whole (see s51(1) of the AAT for a specific list of its functions) ! The ARC ensures the system doesn’t remain static and rigid – that is continues to evolve and adapt Sec 28: provides access to full reasons for decisions made under the 375 pieces of legislation which allow for review by the AAT ! Sec 13 of the ADJR fills the void
3. Freedom of Information Act 1982 • •
Provides access to government information – intended to provide open government FOI is restricted by exemptions for a broad range of information
4. Ombudsman Act 1976 • •
Establishes the Ombudsman Ombudsman is a watchdog who investigates actions relating to matters of administration
Franks Report 1957 (UK)
Page 14 of 121
Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Ccl (1981) 151 CLR 170 Building & Construction Employees & Builders’ Labourers Fed of NSW v Min for Industrial Relations (NSW) (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 Min for Arts, Heritage & Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 274 Balmain Assoc Inc v Planning Administrator for Leichhardt Cl (1991) 25 NSWLR 615 Vic v Master Builders Assoc of Vic [1995] 2 VR 121
Facts Held
! ! !
Introduction to judicial review Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986) Minister’s decision to grant approval to aboriginal land claim Minister’s decision was struck down by the High Court as he did not take into relevant consideration He had not taken into account the interest a company had in this land (uranium)
The courts’ power is restricted to questions of law – they can’t substitute their decision for a decision of an administrator. Judicial review looks at lawfulness (power) not merits. Courts look at the legality of a decision – they don’t determine a decision based on its merits. This is seen as a limitation on the ability of courts to serve individual interests in the review of administrative decisions. However, courts are precluded from reviewing decisions based on their merits, as opposed to legality, because of: • the separation of powers, at least at the Commonwealth level; and • the undesirability of courts becoming embroiled in politics – this would be the effect if courts were to make decision as a matter of policy rather than law Courts, however, try not to encroach on policy-making powers of the executive. The criteria for determining cases on review are to be derived from the enabling statute on which the decision is based. High Court jurisdiction Sections 75(iii) and (v) of the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 respectively , provides the High Court with original jurisdiction in matters where the Commonwealth is a party or a writs of mandamus/prohibition are sought against a Commonwealth officer. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 44
Page 15 of 121
Disclosure ............................................................................................................ 29 The right to make submissions ............................................................................. 29 A right to cross-examine and applicability of rules of evidence .......................... 29 A right to legal representation ............................................................................. 29 A right to reasons ................................................................................................. 30 LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS ..................................................................................... 30 QUALIFICATIONS TO THE RULE: POLICY AND POLITICAL DECISIONS .......................... 36 EXCLUSION OF THE HEARING RULE ........................................................................... 37 By statutory authorities ........................................................................................ 37 Non-application of the rule .................................................................................. 38 THE RULE AGAINST BIAS (MEMO JUDEX) .................................................................. 42 The rule at common law....................................................................................... 42 TESTS OF BIAS ........................................................................................................... 43 Reasonable suspicion/apprehension of bias ........................................................ 43 Real likelihood of bias ......................................................................................... 44 Merger of the two tests......................................................................................... 45 Actual bias ........................................................................................................... 45 Collegiate decision-making ................................................................................. 46 THE NO EVIDENCE RULE ............................................................................................ 49 OTHER QUASI-RULES OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS ...................................................... 52 The duty to give reasons ...................................................................................... 52 The duty to initiate inquiries ................................................................................ 52 ULTRA VIRES .......................................................................................................... 55 SIMPLE/NARROW ULTRA VIRES ................................................................................. 55 Substantive UV (Is there a power to act?) ........................................................... 55 Implied UV ........................................................................................................... 56 Procedural UV (Has the condition precedent to power been fulfilled?) ............. 56 EXTENDED/BROAD ULTRA VIRES ............................................................................... 58 ABUSE OF POWER ...................................................................................................... 58 (i) Abuse of discretionary power generally ......................................................... 58 (ii) Bad faith/improper purpose ........................................................................... 59 (iii) Relevant/irrelevant considerations ............................................................... 60 (iv) Lack of proper consideration ........................................................................ 62 Unreasonableness ................................................................................................ 63 Unreasonableness & lack of proportionality....................................................... 64 Unreasonableness & duty to inquire ................................................................... 64 Uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 64 No evidence .......................................................................................................... 65 FAILURE TO EXERCISE POWER ................................................................................... 65 Fettering of discretion (bias by predetermination) .............................................. 65 Inflexible application of policy ............................................................................ 66 Acting under dictation.......................................................................................... 67 Sub-delegation ..................................................................................................... 68 Estoppel................................................................................................................ 69 JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ................................................................................... 70 ERRORS OF FACT/LAW ............................................................................................... 70 TRADITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ...................................................... 74
Page 2 of 121
WANT/LACK OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. 74 EXCESS OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 75 WRONGFUL FAILURE/REFUSAL TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION ...................................... 76 CONSTRUCTIVE JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ................................................................... 77 JURISDICTIONAL FACT ............................................................................................... 77 EXCEPTION: ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ....................................... 78 EXTENDED JURISDICTIONAL ERROR ............................................................ 79 THE ANISMINIC REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND ............................................................... 79 Facts..................................................................................................................... 79 Commentary ......................................................................................................... 80 ANISMINIC IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................................... 82 NSW CA CASES POST-CRAIG ................................................................................... 84 STATUTORY RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: ADJR ACT ........................... 84 APPLICATION OF THE ACT ......................................................................................... 84 ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 85 There must be a “decision” ................................................................................. 85 The decision must be of an “administrative character”...................................... 85 Decision made “under an enactment” ................................................................ 87 Conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision .................................. 88 WHO MAY SEEK REVIEW UNDER THE ADJR ACT? .................................................... 91 GROUNDS OF REVIEW ................................................................................................ 92 Summary of statutory provisions ......................................................................... 92 REMEDIES UNDER THE ADJR ACT ............................................................................ 93 ADJR ACT REFORM .................................................................................................. 93 LIMITS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW .......................................................................... 93 PRIVATIVE CLAUSES ................................................................................................. 93 Examples of privative clauses .............................................................................. 94 THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION ..................................................................... 94 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PRIVATIVE CLAUSES .................................................. 94 FINALITY CLAUSES.................................................................................................... 94 NO CERTIORARI CLAUSES (DECISION SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED) ........................... 94 LIMIT CLAUSES ......................................................................................................... 95 Time limit clauses ................................................................................................ 95 Clauses limiting the grounds of review................................................................ 96 FEDERAL PRIVATIVE CLAUSES .................................................................................. 96 PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY ..................................................................................... 96 Claims of public interest immunity ...................................................................... 96 Scope and nature of the immunity ........................................................................ 97 The balance of public interest .............................................................................. 97 Who can claim public interest immunity? ............................................................ 97 JUDICIAL REMEDIES ............................................................................................ 97 PREROGATIVE/CONSTITUTIONAL WRITS .................................................................... 97 Certiorari ............................................................................................................. 97 Prohibition ........................................................................................................... 98 AVAILABILITY OF RELIEF .......................................................................................... 98 STANDING TO SEEK THE PREROGATIVE WRITS ......................................................... 100 MANDAMUS ............................................................................................................ 100 Page 3 of 121
AVAILABILITY OF RELIEF ........................................................................................ 101 Must be a duty to be performed ......................................................................... 101 Duty must be a public one.................................................................................. 101 Duty must be lawful ........................................................................................... 101 DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 101 STANDING FOR MANDAMUS .................................................................................... 102 QUO WARRANTO ..................................................................................................... 102 EQUITABLE REMEDIES: INJUNCTIONS AND DECLARATIONS ..................................... 102 Standing to seek injunctions and declarations................................................... 102 Special interest test ............................................................................................ 103 Injunction ........................................................................................................... 106 Declaration ........................................................................................................ 106 Habeas Corpus .................................................................................................. 107 Damages ............................................................................................................ 107 MERITS REVIEW .................................................................................................. 108 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ................................................................... 108 SCOPE AND NATURE OF REVIEW .............................................................................. 109 Who may seek review at the AAT? ..................................................................... 110 AAT Powers ....................................................................................................... 111 Reasons for decisions......................................................................................... 112 AAT procedure ................................................................................................... 112 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL (NSW) .................................................... 113 OTHER REVIEW MECHANISMS ...................................................................... 114 ACCESS TO INFORMATION: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION .................... 114 Appeals of FOI application determinations ....................................................... 119 MALADMINISTRATION: OMBUDSMAN ........................................................ 119 LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................... 119 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................... 119 WHO CAN COMPLAIN?............................................................................................. 119 INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT ................................................................................................................................ 120 Objectives and consequences of an investigation .............................................. 120 References to the AAT, Federal Court and Judicial Review ............................. 120 CORRUPTION: ICAC............................................................................................ 120 Cases AG (Cth) v R (1957) 95 CLR 529 (Boilermakers’ Case) ............................................ 11 AG v Fulham Corp [1921] 1 Ch 440 ........................................................................... 40 AG v Great Eastern Railway Co (1877) 4 Ch D 735 ................................................... 40 AG v Smethwick Corp [1932] 1 Ch 562 ..................................................................... 40 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 ............................... 83 Anderton v Auckland City Ccl [1978] 1 NZLR 657 ................................................... 50 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 .................... 61 Annets v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 ...................................................................... 26 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) P/L v Cth (1977) 139 CLR 54.................... 52 ANU v Burns (1982) 43 ALR 25................................................................................. 70 Arthur Yates & Co P/L v Veg. Seeds Committee (1945) 72 CLR 37 ......................... 18
Page 4 of 121
Ashbridge Invts Ltd v Min of Housing & LG [1965] 3 All ER 371 ........................... 37 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223...................................................................................................................... 47, 48 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 ..................... 38, 67, 71 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Cth (1980) 146 CLR 439 ................... 82, 85 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Min for Resources (1989) 19 ALD 70..... 86 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v SA (1990) 53 SASR 349 ......................... 87 Ballina Environment Soc Inc v Ballina Shire Ccl (1992) 78 LGERA 232 ................. 42 Balmain Assoc Inc v Planning Administrator for Leichhardt Ccl (1991) 25 NSWLR 615............................................................................................................................ 31 Bank of NSW v Cth (1948) 76 CLR 1......................................................................... 20 Banks v Transport Regulation Board (Vic) (1968) 119 CLR 222 ......................... 25, 81 BHP Petroleum P/L v Balfour (1987) 180 CLR 474 ................................................... 65 Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Transport and Regional Development (1996) 137 ALR 281............................................................................................................ 68 British Oxygen Co Ltd v Min of Technology [1971] AC 610 .................................... 51 Bruce Kerr P/L v Gosford CC (LEC, 17/12/96) .......................................................... 51 Byron Shire Business for the Future Inc v Byron Shire Ccl (1994) 84 LGERA 434 .. 39 Byron Shire Businesses for the Future Inc v Byron Ccl & Anor (1994) 83 LGERA 59 .................................................................................................................................. 42 Capello v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) .................................... 74 Carbines v Powell (1925) 36 CLR 88.......................................................................... 18 Carltona Ltd v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 .................................... 53 Ccl of Civil Service Unions v Min for Civil Service (1985) 1 AC 374....................... 32 Central Qld Speleological (Caving) Scty Inc v Central Qld Cement P/L (No 1) [1989] 2 Qd R 512 (The Ghost Bat Case) ........................................................................... 87 Cinnamond v British Airport Auth [1980] 1 WLR 582............................................... 32 City of London v Wood (1701) 88 ER 1592 ............................................................... 17 Clancy v Butchers’ Shop Employees Union (1904) 1 CLR 181 ................................. 76 Clements v Bull (1953) ................................................................................................ 17 Coles Supermarkets Aust P/L v Min for Urban Affairs & Planning (1996) 90 LGERA 341............................................................................................................................ 78 Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1997) 141 ALR 59 ................................... 16 Collector of Customs v Brian Lawlor Automotive P/L (1979) 24 ALR 307 .............. 92 Commonwealth v Grunseit (1943) 67 CLR 58 ...................................................... 68, 69 Congreve v Home Office [1976] 1 QB 629 ................................................................. 44 Cooney v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Ccl (1963) 114 CLR 582 ........................................ 87 Cooper v Wandsworth Bd of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 ..................................... 24 Corp of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission & Anor (2000) 199 CLR 135 ............................................................................................................ 60 Craig v SA (1995) 131 ALR 595 ........................................................................... 59, 61 Craig v South Australia (1995) 69 ALJR 873 ............................................................. 65 Dale v NSW Trotting Club Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 551 ............................................... 35 Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243 .................................................................... 34 Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759...................................................... 34 Drake v Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 1) (1979) 24 ALR 577 ........................... 94 Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 ................ 91 Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337 ................................................................... 30 Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 .............................................................................. 55 Edwards v Justice Guidice [1999] FCA 1836.............................................................. 59
Page 5 of 121
Emmott v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Ccl (1954) 3 LGRA 177 ........................................ 51 Essex County Ccl v Min for Housing & Local Govt (1967) 66 LGR 23 .................... 32 Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v Singapore Improvement Trust (1937) .......... 59 Evans v Donaldson (1909) 9 CLR 140 ........................................................................ 52 Evans v Friedman (1981) 53 FLR 229 ........................................................................ 12 Evans v Friemann (1983) 35 ALR 428 ........................................................................ 69 Ex parte Provera; Re Wilkinson (1952) 69 WN (NSW) 242....................................... 17 FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342............................................ 21, 29 Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Ccl [1961] AC 636 ...................... 20, 49 Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 ................................................. 72 Foster v Aloni [1951] VLR 481 ................................................................................... 20 Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87 ............................ 51 Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] AC 87 ............................ 36 Fraser Island Defenders Org Ltd v Hervey Bay Town Ccl [1983] 2 Qd R 72 ............ 87 Gourgand v Lawton (1982) 42 ALR 117 ..................................................................... 71 Gourgaud v Lawton (1982).......................................................................................... 67 Gouriet v Union of PO Workers [1978] AC 435 ......................................................... 85 Hamblin v Duffy (1981) 34 ALR 333 ......................................................................... 68 Hamblin v Duffy (1981) 50 FLR 308 ........................................................................... 12 Hannam v Bradford Corp [1970] 1 WLR 937 ............................................................. 35 Hardi v Woollahra Ccl (LEC, Cripps J, 17 Dec 1987) ................................................ 29 Haynes v Sutherland Shire Ccl (1966) 12 LGRA 220 ........................................... 41, 42 Hazel v Hammersmith & Fulham London Burough Ccl [1992] 2 AC 1 ..................... 41 Heatley v Tas Racing & Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487 ................... 29, 31 Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124 ................................................................................. 61 Hope v Bathurst City Ccl (1980) 144 CLR 1 .............................................................. 56 Hornsby Shire Ccl v Porter (1990) 19 NSWLR 716 ................................................... 30 Hott Holdings v Cresay [2002] HC ............................................................................. 36 Jeffs v NZ Dairy Production & Marketing Board [1967] AC 551 .............................. 33 Jet 60 Minute Cleaners P/L v Brownette [1981] 2 NSWLR 232 ................................ 78 K v Cullen (1994) 126 ALR 38 .................................................................................... 68 Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 .................................................................... 11 Kent County Ccl v Kingsway Investments (1970) 68 LGR 301 ................................. 20 Kerlberg v The City of Sale [1964] VR 383 ................................................................ 40 Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) ....................................... 47 King Gee Clothing Co P/L v Cth (1946) 71 CLR 184 ................................................ 19 Kioa v West (1985)................................................................................................. 22, 26 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 ............................................................................... 80 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Vanmeld P/L v Fairfield City Ccl (1999) 46 NSWLR 78............................................................................................................... 26 Ku-ring-gai MC v Arthur H Gillott P/L (1968) 15 LGRA 127 ................................... 84 Lee v Department of Education and Science (1967) ................................................... 42 Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v N. Sydney Municipal Ccl (1990) 69 LGRA 201............................................................................................................................ 49 Lewis v Heffer [1978] 1 WLR 1061 ............................................................................ 31 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 ........................................................................ 13 London and Clydeside.................................................................................................. 41 London County Ccl v AG [1902] AC 165 ................................................................... 40 Lynch v Brisbane City Ccl (1961) 104 CLR 353 ........................................................ 41 Mahon v Air NZ Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 193 ................................................................... 22
Page 6 of 121
Mahon v Air NZ Ltd [1984] AC 808 ........................................................................... 37 Maloney v NSW National Coursing Assoc Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 161 ...................... 35 Marnal Pty Ltd v Cessnock City Council (1989) 68 LGRA 135 ................................. 47 McEldowney v Forde [1971] AC 632 ......................................................................... 17 Mersey Docks Trustees v Gibbs (1866) LR 1 HL 93 .................................................. 33 MIMA v Yusuf; Re Minister for Immigration [2001] HCA 30 (21 May 2001).......... 66 Min for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 ....................... 45 Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 [FC] ................................ 37 Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 ...................................... 30 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 ..... 39, 46, 47 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995).......................................... 75 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995) 57 FCR 194 .................... 56 Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) 4 ALD 661 .................... 68 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Waller (1985) 1 NSWLR 1 ................................................ 82 Moreton v Union Steamship Co of NZ Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402 ................................. 18 Municipal Ccl of Sydney v Campbell [1925] AC 338 ................................................ 44 Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1 .................................... 46 Northrop and Lockhart JJ in Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) ....................................................................................................................... 69 NSW Fish Authority v Phillips [1970] 1 NSWR 725............................................... 86 O’Keefe v City of Caulfield [1945] VLR 227 .............................................................. 18 O’Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Vic (1982) 153 CLR 1 .......................... 54 O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989)........................................................................................... 46 Ogle v Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41 ........................................................................... 86 Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR 27..................................................... 86 Pacific Outdoor Advertising P/L v N. Sydney Municipal Ccl (1979) 39 LGRA 207 . 40 Padfield v Min for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997 ............................. 83 Padfield v Min of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997 ............................... 45 Panagopoulos v Sec Dept of Veterans’ Affairs (1995) 60 FCR 524 ........................... 31 Parramatta City Council v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319 .............................................. 39 Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 .................. 59, 65 Potter v Melb & Metropolitan Tramways Board (1957) 98 CLR 337 ........................ 58 Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 .............................................................................. 39 Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 ................................................... 61 Public Service Board v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656.......................................... 28, 38 Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615 ................................. 69 R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air P/L (1965) 113 ALR 177 ................................... 52 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co P/L (1953) 88 CLR 100 .................................................................................................. 34 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 ................................................................................................. 58 R v BBC; Ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23 ....................................................... 81, 83 R v Booth ex p Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association (1978) .................. 60 R v Brecknock and Abergavenny Canal Co (1835) 3 Ad & E 217 ............................. 84 R v Camborne Justices; Ex parte Pearce [1955] 1 QB 41 ........................................... 35 R v City of Burnside; Ex parte Ipswich Properties P/L (1987) 46 SASR 81 .............. 82 R v City of Marion; Ex parte Independent Grocers’ Co-op Ltd (No 1) (1984) 37 SASR 415 ................................................................................................................ 87 R v City Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; ex p Datagin plc (1987) .......................... 81 R v Collins; ex p ACTU-Solo Pty Ltd (1976) ............................................................. 81
Page 7 of 121
R v Commissioner of Police (NT); Ex parte Holroyd (1965) 7 FLR 8 ....................... 77 R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; ex p Blackburn (1968) ...................... 84 R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407 ................. 58 R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore [1965] 1 QB 456 ...... 37 R v Electricity Commission; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171 ................................................................................................ 80 R v Electricity Commission; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171 ...................................................................................................... 80 R v Greater London Ccl; Ex parte Blackburn (1976) 1 WLR 550 .............................. 82 R v Greater Manchester Coroner; Ex parte Tal [1984] 3 WLR 643 .................... 65 R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 ............................. 57, 78 R v Justices of Surrey (1870) LR 5 QB 466 ................................................................ 82 R v Liverpool Corp; Ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Assoc [1972] 2 QB 299 ............................................................................................................................ 29, 82 R v Medical Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Gilmore [1957] 1 QB 574 ............................ 77 R v Morton [1892] 1 QB 39......................................................................................... 84 R v Murray and Cormie ex p Commonwwealth (1916) ............................................... 76 R v North ex p Oakey (1927)........................................................................................ 27 R v Port of London Authority; Ex parte Kynock Ltd (1919)1 KB 176 ....................... 51 R v Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230 .................................................................................... 34 R v Stafford Justices; Ex parte Stafford Corp (1940) 2 KB 33 ................................... 82 R v Stepney Corp [1902] 1 KB 317 ............................................................................. 52 R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 ................................... 33, 34 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Ccl (1981) 151 CLR 170 ................................. 18 R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal ex p Bott (1933) ............................... 60 R v West Coast Ccl; Ex parte The Strahan Motor Inn (1995) 87 LGERA 383 ........... 36 Randall v Northcote Corporation (1910) .................................................................... 83 Re Adams & Tax Agents’ Board (1976) 12 ALR 239 ................................................ 91 Re Akuhata-Brown v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1983) 5 ALD 289 . 93 Re Barlow (1861) 40 LJQB 271 .................................................................................. 84 Re Becker and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158 ............................. 93 Re Becker v Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158 ................................. 51 Re Drake and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 ................... 51 Re Drake and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1980) 2 ALD 634 ........ 92, 94 Re Locke; Ex parte Commissioner for Railways (1968) 87 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 430 ... 84 Re McHattan & Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 18 ALR 154............................ 93 Re Pergamon Press Ltd [1971] Ch 388........................................................................ 27 Re Pochi and Min for Imm & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33 [AAT] ...................... 37 Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 ........................................................... 65 Re Randwick Municipal Ccl; Ex parte SF Bowser & Co (1927) 27 SR NSW 209l ... 41 Re Sneddon; Ex parte Grinham [1959] 61 SR (NSW) 862 ......................................... 18 Re the University of Sydney; Ex parte Forseter (1963) 63 SR (NSW) 723 ................ 53 Re Tully; Ex parte Wurth (1954) 55 SR (NSW) 47............................................... 57, 60 Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 .................................................................................... 23 Ricegrowers Cooperative Mills Ltd v Bannerman (1981) ........................................... 73 Ridge v Baldwin (1964) ............................................................................................... 82 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 .................................................................................. 25 Right to Life Assoc (NSW) Inc v Sec, Dept of Human Services & Health (Cth) (1995) 128 ALR 238...................................................................................................... 73, 87 Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 ............................................................................ 45
Page 8 of 121
Ross v Costigan (1982) 59 FLR 184 ............................................................................ 67 SA v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378 .............................................................................. 23 Salemi v Mackellar (No 2) (1977) 137 CLR 396 ........................................................ 29 SAT FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1997) 75 FCR 604 ................ 69 Schmidt v Sec. of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149 ........................................ 29 Scurr v Brisbane City Ccl (1973) 133 CLR 242 .................................................... 41, 42 Shanahan v Scott (1956) 96 CLR 245 ......................................................................... 18 Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (1975) 132 CLR 473 .................................. 59 Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 .............................. 83 Spence v Teece (1982) 61 FLR 68 ............................................................................... 12 Steeples v Derbyshire County Ccl [1985] 1 WLR 256................................................ 50 Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509 ............................ 34 Swan Hill Corp v Bradbury (1937) 56 CLR 746 ......................................................... 20 Tasker v Fullwood [1978] 1 NSWLR 20..................................................................... 41 Television Corp Ltd v Cth (1963) 109 CLR 59 ..................................................... 20, 49 Thompson v Randwick Municipal Ccl [1950] 81 CLR 87 .................................... 44, 47 Tooheys Ltd v Min for Business & Consumer Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 64 ................. 73 Tracey v Waverley Municipal Council (1959) 5 LGRA 7 ........................................... 53 Twist v Randwick Municipal Ccl (1976) 136 CLR 106 .......................................... 31 Videto v MIEA (1985) (No 2) ..................................................................................... 39 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 ................................... 54 Warringah Shire Ccl & Ors v Pittwater PC (1992) 26 NSWLR 491........................... 43 Williams v Melb Corp (1933) 49 CLR 142.................................................................. 48 Williams v Melbourne Corp (1933) 49 CLR 142 ........................................................ 19 Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 .................................................................................................................................. 11 Woolworths Ltd v Hawke (1998) 45 NSWLR 13 ....................................................... 77 Yusuf v Min for Imm & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 206 CLR 323 .......................... 60
Page 9 of 121
Principles of administrative law Introductory notes When answering administrative law questions, consider: 1. The decision maker-maybe they didn’t have the power 2. The decision making process 3. The decision-was it within power? Administrative law is about the making of administrative decisions. Not just decisions about Government (Executive) but domestic tribunals (Nongovernment bodies e.g. sporting clubs) Who has the power, where does the power lie? The rights the decisionary has in relation to decision makers. Concerned with various methods and processes that exist to ensure that power is exercised lawfully (fairness and legality). Legality means that there is power to act. However, there are rules of fairness additionally. All administrative decisions are subject to judicial review. Australian bureaucracies have resisted reforms to make them more responsive. External accountability measures are necessary. Senior administrators are formally answerable to responsible Ministers. Use of public money is subject to supervision by independent auditors. Ombudsmen are another from of non-political supervision. Royal Commission can also be used to scrutinize government administration. The powers of external investigative bodies are limited. They can only make recommendations. Whether their recommendations are implemented depends on how persuasive they are. Bureaucracy is subject to judicial control in so far as the legality of their bureaucratic behaviour is concerned. This can be justified on the basis of the separation of power. However: The same commitment to the separation of powers which justifies Australian courts having an ultimate monopoly over questions of law is in France the basis for the belief that the Executive should have monopoly over matters bureaucratic (including questions relating to the legality of bureaucratic behaviour) (Administrative Law at 22; see fn 27). Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986)
Page 10 of 121
Facts Held
! ! !
Minister’s decision to grant approval to aboriginal land claim Minister’s decision was struck down by the High Court as he did not take into relevant consideration He had not taken into account the interest a company had in this land (uranium)
Principle of rational humanness A rationality informed by consideration and compassion for the needs of human beings. Decision makers should give consideration to the needs of humans. CJ Hughes (US)-decisions need to have rational, probative thought. Lord Diplock Ex parte Moore: The probative evidence-decision makers must act on logically probative material. Lord Denning: legitimate expectation Justice Kirby: decision makers must only act reasonably and in good faith Principle of equal power Not a common principle, but people involved in ADR have written about. The decision maker has power-conferred or imposed. Most decision makers get their power from Acts of Parliament. 1st question is always: Is there power to act? The decision maker has superior power-power the decisionary doesn’t have. There is an inequality of bargaining power. The principle of equal power works on the principle that decision makers should act as if there were equal power between the parties. The Constitutional framework The rule of law Dicey contrasted the British and French systems for regulating bureaucracy in The Law of the Constitution, published in 1885. The ‘check’ on French bureaucracy was the bureaucracy itself. Dicey expounded the principles of the rule of law (Administrative Law at 23): • you can’t be punished unless you’ve broken the law • everyone is subject to the law • courts preserve individual rights Administrative tribunals are inferior to courts (Arthurs (1979) Rethinking Administrative Law cited in Administrative Law at 24).
Page 11 of 121
Tribunals must act intra vires – within power. Tribunals can’t hide behind clauses that oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts according to Arthurs. This is certainly the case in relation to the High Courts jurisdiction (sec 75(5) of the Constitution). Arthurs doubted whether judges were always in a better position to make decisions in specialized areas. Judicial review should ensure tribunals perform the tasks confided in them. Executive accountability – responsible government Responsible governments means Ministers are answerable to parliament. Officials function within a governmental framework and are responsible either to an institution or a person. Ministers aren’t held responsible for the actions of officials. However, they can be answerable for the actions of those officials. The separation of powers The separation of powers was entrenched by AG (Cth) v R (1957) 95 CLR 529 (Boilermakers’ Case). Each branch of governments acts a check on the other. There isn’t a rigid separation of powers in the states as there is at the federal level. However, the High Court’s decision in Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.strengthens the position of state courts (Administrative Law at 30; see fn 32). Implications of the separation of powers doctrine on admin law include: • a sharp distinction between the powers of tribunals and courts • non-administrative tribunals can’t make binding decisions – this restruction doesn’t apply in the same sense to administrative tribunals which are armed with the powers of the primary decision-maker • conferral of non-judicial functions on courts isn’t permitted whereas judges can be conferred with non-judicial capacity, for example to sit on a tribunal, provided this capacity doesn’t conflict with their judicial role (Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1) (Administrative Law at 31) • just as the executive shouldn’t interfere with the judiciary, the judiciary recognises that on questions of policy it should defer to the executive and legislature Jurisprudential basis Ultra vires
Page 12 of 121
An act must be within the power granted by the governing legislation to be valid. Otherwise, it is considered ‘beyond power’ or ultra vires. The principle of legality extends the doctrine of simple ultra vires. This principle incorporates considerations relating to: • the purposes underlying a decision • whether decision makers have taken account of relevant factors and ignored irrelevant factors in making a decision • whether decisions are reasonable, certain and based on evidence • whether discretion is used where it is given Natural justice, administrative justice and procedural fairness 1. Hearing rule-person has right to be heard before a decision is made (some exceptions exist) 2. There is a rule against bias. 3. The probative evidence rule-Diplok-decisions must be based on logically probative material Sources of administrative law Recognition of the limitations of ministerial responsibility Evolution of the new administrative law The outcome of the Kerr Committee’s 1971 inquiry into the rationalisation of administrative law was the Kerr report. The key features of this report included (Administrative Law at 56): • the establishment of a general administrative tribunal to review administrative decisions on their merits • codification and procedural reform of the system of judicial review • creation of an office of the Ombudsman to investigate matters of administration • establishment of a body to keep the new administrative mechanisms under observation and to monitor possible development in admin law and practice Theses recommendations were brought into effect by the: 1. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 •
•
Sections 5 – 7: grounds for challenging administrative decisions ! Sec 5 applies where decisions have already been made ! Sec 6 mirrors sec 5 but applies where decisions are in the process of being made ! Sec 7 deals with cases where an administrator has failed to act when they were under a duty to act Sec 3: ADJR applies to decisions of an administrative character ! The ADJR isn’t intended to authorise review of delegated legislation as this isn’t considered of an “administrative character” (Hamblin v Duffy
Page 13 of 121
•
•
(1981) 50 FLR 308; and Evans v Friedman (1981) 53 FLR 229) (Administrative Law at 57) ! However, delegated legislation may be reviewed on the ground that it is ultra vires its authorising Act (Spence v Teece (1982) 61 FLR 68) (Administrative Law at 57) Improvements introduced by the ADJR: ! it’s possible to get reasons for almost any decision reviewable under the ADJR ! procedure/remedies are simpler than at common law ! applications for review are made to the Fed Court rather than the High Court – making review more accessible ! Fed Court handles cases expeditiously Decision of GG are excluded from the ADJR – review is only available at common law
2. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 •
• • • • •
•
Established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – empowered to review specified exercise of discretion (see Sch to AAT Act; and relevant legislation which refers decisions for review to the AAT) AAT stands in the shoes of the decision-maker – its decision can be substituted for that of the original decision-maker AAT can make decisions based on their merits Rules of standing are broad – provided the decision for review falls within the scope of the AAT Act Reasons for decision are available where AAT Act applies Established the Administrative Review Council – it’s overall function is to supervise the operation of the system of administrative law as a whole (see s51(1) of the AAT for a specific list of its functions) ! The ARC ensures the system doesn’t remain static and rigid – that is continues to evolve and adapt Sec 28: provides access to full reasons for decisions made under the 375 pieces of legislation which allow for review by the AAT ! Sec 13 of the ADJR fills the void
3. Freedom of Information Act 1982 • •
Provides access to government information – intended to provide open government FOI is restricted by exemptions for a broad range of information
4. Ombudsman Act 1976 • •
Establishes the Ombudsman Ombudsman is a watchdog who investigates actions relating to matters of administration
Franks Report 1957 (UK)
Page 14 of 121
Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Ccl (1981) 151 CLR 170 Building & Construction Employees & Builders’ Labourers Fed of NSW v Min for Industrial Relations (NSW) (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 Min for Arts, Heritage & Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 274 Balmain Assoc Inc v Planning Administrator for Leichhardt Cl (1991) 25 NSWLR 615 Vic v Master Builders Assoc of Vic [1995] 2 VR 121
Facts Held
! ! !
Introduction to judicial review Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986) Minister’s decision to grant approval to aboriginal land claim Minister’s decision was struck down by the High Court as he did not take into relevant consideration He had not taken into account the interest a company had in this land (uranium)
The courts’ power is restricted to questions of law – they can’t substitute their decision for a decision of an administrator. Judicial review looks at lawfulness (power) not merits. Courts look at the legality of a decision – they don’t determine a decision based on its merits. This is seen as a limitation on the ability of courts to serve individual interests in the review of administrative decisions. However, courts are precluded from reviewing decisions based on their merits, as opposed to legality, because of: • the separation of powers, at least at the Commonwealth level; and • the undesirability of courts becoming embroiled in politics – this would be the effect if courts were to make decision as a matter of policy rather than law Courts, however, try not to encroach on policy-making powers of the executive. The criteria for determining cases on review are to be derived from the enabling statute on which the decision is based. High Court jurisdiction Sections 75(iii) and (v) of the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 respectively , provides the High Court with original jurisdiction in matters where the Commonwealth is a party or a writs of mandamus/prohibition are sought against a Commonwealth officer. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 44
Page 15 of 121
