Error of law on the face of the record in judicial review
Error of Law on the Face of the Record in Judicial Review
“Error of law on the face of the record” is a traditional ground for judicial review of administrative decisions. It refers to a clear, obvious legal mistake apparent from the official documents (the "record") of the decision, without needing to look beyond the record or hear additional evidence.
“Face of the record” means the error must be identifiable simply by examining the decision documents — the decision itself, reasons, or orders.
It involves a mistake in interpreting or applying the law, as opposed to errors of fact or procedural irregularities.
Such an error usually renders the decision void or voidable because decision-makers are only empowered to act lawfully.
Courts can quash or set aside decisions if they find an error of law on the face of the record.
This principle limits judicial review to clear legal errors, ensuring that courts do not unnecessarily interfere with administrative discretion.
Key Case Law on Error of Law on the Face of the Record
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts: The Foreign Compensation Commission made a decision which allegedly contained an error of law. The statute purported to exclude judicial review.
Holding: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public body renders its decision a nullity, even in the presence of an ouster clause.
Significance: This case dramatically expanded judicial review, confirming that any error of law on the face of the record invalidates a decision, regardless of statutory bars. It remains a cornerstone authority on errors of law.
2. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (High Court of Australia)
Facts: Concerned judicial review of administrative decisions under South Australian law.
Holding: The High Court reaffirmed the principle that courts can intervene when there is a jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record.
Significance: Craig is key in Australian law, confirming that jurisdictional errors and errors of law on the record are grounds for quashing decisions.
3. R v Hull (1949) 1 KB 405 (UK)
Facts: The Home Secretary refused to release a prisoner under the Home Secretary’s discretion.
Holding: Lord Denning held that an administrative decision made in excess of legal authority due to a legal error can be quashed.
Significance: It highlights the court’s supervisory role where errors of law appear clearly on the record, reinforcing that legality is paramount.
4. Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531 (High Court of Australia)
Facts: Concerned whether the Industrial Court made errors of law on the face of the record.
Holding: The High Court emphasized that State courts and tribunals must not exceed their jurisdiction or make errors of law on the face of the record, or their decisions risk being invalid.
Significance: This decision confirms that constitutional principles protect against jurisdictional errors or legal errors on the record by tribunals and courts alike.
5. Pearce v O’Neill (1996) 139 ALR 197 (Federal Court of Australia)
Facts: The case involved a decision by a tribunal that was alleged to contain an error of law on the record.
Holding: The Court held that errors of law apparent on the face of the decision documents were sufficient to justify judicial review.
Significance: This case illustrates how Australian courts apply the error of law principle to administrative tribunals.
Summary of the Principle
An error of law on the face of the record means the error is clear and obvious from the official decision documents.
It is a strong and established ground for judicial review.
This principle helps maintain the rule of law by ensuring administrative bodies do not act beyond or contrary to their legal authority.
It contrasts with errors of fact or procedural fairness, which may require more complex inquiry.
Leading cases like Anisminic, Craig, and Kirk underpin this principle both in the UK and Australian contexts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments