Development of administrative law in common law tradition
✅ Development of Administrative Law in Common Law Tradition
I. What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the actions and decisions of government agencies and public officials.
It ensures that the exercise of governmental power is lawful, reasonable, and fair.
It emerged to control abuse of power and protect citizens’ rights against arbitrary government actions.
II. How Did Administrative Law Develop in Common Law?
It evolved through judicial decisions (case law), especially regarding:
Judicial review of administrative acts
Natural justice and procedural fairness
Limits of discretion
Delegation of powers
Courts created principles allowing them to review and invalidate unlawful decisions.
✅ Key Case Laws in the Development of Administrative Law
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case) [1985] AC 374 (UK)
Background:
The UK government banned employees at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) from joining unions for security reasons. The unions challenged this decision.
Held:
The House of Lords recognized judicial review of executive actions even involving national security.
Identified three grounds for review:
Illegality (acting beyond power),
Irrationality (unreasonableness), and
Procedural impropriety (lack of fairness).
Significance:
Established modern grounds of judicial review.
Expanded courts’ willingness to supervise government decisions.
Developed the concept of reasonableness in administrative law.
2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (UK)
Background:
A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held:
The House of Lords held that natural justice (fair hearing) applies to administrative decisions affecting rights.
The dismissal was quashed for lack of procedural fairness.
Significance:
Reintroduced natural justice principles into administrative law.
Made fairness and hearing essential elements of lawful administrative decisions.
Marked a shift from purely discretionary government power to controlled power.
3. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Background:
The Foreign Compensation Commission made a decision that Anisminic claimed was wrong, but the statute said decisions are “final and conclusive.”
Held:
The House of Lords ruled that “finality clauses” do not protect decisions made in error of law.
The court could review and quash decisions if made unlawfully.
Significance:
Expanded scope of judicial review.
Clarified that jurisdictional errors (when a decision-maker exceeds power) invalidate decisions.
Established that courts can review decisions despite attempts by Parliament to exclude review.
4. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 (UK)
Background:
The Minister refused to refer a complaint about a marketing board despite being required to do so.
Held:
The House of Lords held that a discretion conferred by statute must be exercised to promote the statute’s purpose.
The refusal was unlawful as it frustrated the statutory intent.
Significance:
Introduced the principle of purposive construction in administrative law.
Limits on administrative discretion based on statutory purpose.
Prevents abuse of discretionary power.
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18 (Australia)
Background:
In an immigration case, the Minister’s delegate made a decision that was challenged for being irrational and lacking reasons.
Held:
The High Court of Australia emphasized that decision-makers must provide reasons and act rationally.
The decision was invalid for failing to consider relevant material and not giving reasons.
Significance:
Affirms the principles of procedural fairness and reasonableness in Australia.
Highlights ongoing evolution of judicial review within the Australian common law.
✅ Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| GCHQ Case (1985) | Grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety | Modern framework for judicial review |
| Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Natural justice requires fair hearing | Fairness central to administrative decisions |
| Anisminic Ltd (1969) | Jurisdictional error invalidates decision despite “final” clause | Expanded scope of judicial review |
| Padfield (1968) | Discretion must align with statutory purpose | Limits on misuse of administrative discretion |
| Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) | Decision-makers must be rational and give reasons | Modern affirmation of fairness and reasonableness |
✅ Quick Recap
Administrative law developed from common law courts stepping in to check government powers.
Key principles:
Judicial review of government decisions.
Protection of natural justice/fairness.
Limits on discretionary powers.
Courts can invalidate decisions with errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.
The common law tradition continues to evolve as courts address new administrative challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments