Administrative Tribunals
✅ What Are Administrative Tribunals?
🔹 Definition:
Administrative tribunals are specialised bodies set up to resolve disputes or review decisions made by government departments or agencies.
They aren’t courts, but they perform quasi-judicial functions. This means they:
Can make binding decisions
Must follow rules of procedural fairness
Often focus on merits review, not just legality
🔹 Key Features:
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Merits review | Re-decides the case based on facts, law, and fairness (not just legality) |
| Less formal | Compared to courts — more accessible and faster |
| Expertise | Tribunal members often have specialised knowledge in fields like immigration, taxation, workers' comp, etc. |
| Reviewable decisions | Their decisions can often be challenged in a court through judicial review, especially for jurisdictional error |
🔹 Major Tribunals in Australia:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – Federal matters
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) – State-level
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) – Migration decisions
🧑⚖️ Detailed Case Law Involving Administrative Tribunals
Let’s now explore more than five landmark cases that helped define the powers, limits, and roles of administrative tribunals.
✅ 1. Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Facts: Mr Drake, a US citizen, was ordered to be deported. He appealed to the AAT.
Issue: Could the AAT consider the Minister’s policy when making its own decision?
Held: Yes — the AAT could consider policy, but was not bound by it. The AAT must make the “correct or preferable” decision based on merits, not just follow policy blindly.
Importance: Clarified the AAT's independence and responsibility in merits review — must weigh the facts and law afresh.
✅ 2. Re Control Investments Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88
Facts: A company challenged the revocation of its broadcasting license.
Issue: Whether procedural fairness applied in the tribunal’s investigative process.
Held: Even though tribunals aren’t courts, they must follow natural justice, especially when reputational or financial interests are affected.
Importance: Cemented procedural fairness as a key obligation for tribunals.
✅ 3. Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Facts: A tribunal recommended granting a mining exploration licence to a competitor. Hot Holdings claimed unfairness.
Issue: Did the Minister breach procedural fairness by relying on tribunal advice without giving Hot Holdings a hearing?
Held: No — the court found no breach, because there was no legitimate expectation of a hearing in this context.
Importance: Clarified when tribunals are required to hold a hearing, and the limits of legitimate expectation in administrative decisions.
✅ 4. Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Facts: Mr Shi’s registration as a migration agent was cancelled. He appealed to the AAT.
Issue: Can the AAT conduct a full merits review of professional disciplinary decisions?
Held: Yes — the AAT must form its own judgment, not just review whether the original decision was reasonable.
Importance: Strong statement of the AAT's remedial powers — not just checking legality, but replacing the decision if necessary.
✅ 5. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541
Facts: An asylum seeker challenged an adverse IAA decision.
Issue: Had the IAA breached natural justice by not giving a chance to respond to new adverse information?
Held: Yes — the IAA had failed in its procedural fairness duties, even in a fast-track system.
Importance: Reinforced that fair hearing rules apply even in streamlined or limited-review tribunals.
✅ 6. Re Becker and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158
Facts: Becker’s visa was refused on character grounds; he appealed to the AAT.
Issue: How should the AAT weigh policy versus individual facts?
Held: AAT must give serious regard to government policy, but can depart from it where justice requires.
Importance: Reaffirmed independent judgment is essential in merits review — tribunals can diverge from policy if justified.
✅ 7. Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33
Facts: Pochi’s deportation was reviewed by the AAT.
Issue: Is the AAT bound by court rules of evidence and procedure?
Held: No — AAT can adopt less formal processes, as long as fairness is maintained.
Importance: Defined the flexible, accessible nature of tribunals — not bound by court technicalities.
🔄 Compare: Tribunals vs Courts
| Feature | Tribunals | Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Review type | Merits review | Judicial review |
| Formality | Less formal | Strict procedure |
| Bound by precedent? | No (generally) | Yes |
| Evidence rules | Flexible | Strict |
| Can reconsider facts? | Yes | No (generally) |
| Examples | AAT, NCAT | Federal Court, High Court |
RELATED Blog
0 comments