Expanding into procedural aspects (filing review applications, remedies, locus standi, etc )
Procedural Aspects in Administrative Law
1. Filing Review Applications
Review applications are legal processes where a decision made by an administrative authority is challenged before a tribunal or court.
Usually, the grounds for review include:
Illegality (lack of jurisdiction).
Irrationality or unreasonableness.
Procedural impropriety (breach of natural justice).
Relevant facts not considered or irrelevant facts considered.
Procedural rules specify:
Time limits for filing reviews (e.g., 30 or 60 days).
Form of filing (written application, affidavit).
Service requirements (copy to opposing parties).
Review bodies may be courts, tribunals like VCAT, or special administrative appellate bodies.
2. Remedies in Administrative Law
Remedies available include:
Quashing orders (certiorari): To nullify an unlawful decision.
Prohibition orders: Preventing an authority from acting beyond jurisdiction.
Mandamus: Compelling a public authority to perform a duty.
Declaration: Formal statement of the legal position.
Injunctions: Restraining unlawful acts.
Compensation in some cases.
The remedy chosen depends on the nature of the grievance and statutory provisions.
3. Locus Standi (Standing)
Refers to the right of a person to bring a case before a tribunal or court.
Traditionally, only those directly affected by a decision have standing.
Modern trends allow public interest litigation or “sufficient interest” to challenge administrative actions.
Standing prevents frivolous or vexatious claims but also ensures access to justice.
Important Case Laws Explaining These Procedural Aspects
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Issue: Procedural fairness and right to be heard in administrative decision-making.
Facts: The Chief Constable was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Decision: The House of Lords held the dismissal void for lack of natural justice.
Significance: Established the necessity of procedural fairness in administrative reviews and the right to a fair hearing.
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Issue: Grounds for judicial review, focusing on unreasonableness.
Facts: A local authority imposed conditions on a cinema license; the licensee challenged on grounds of irrationality.
Decision: The Court introduced the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test, where decisions so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make them can be quashed.
Significance: Set the standard for substantive review of administrative discretion.
3. R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
Issue: Locus standi and when public interest groups can challenge administrative decisions.
Facts: A federation challenged tax authorities’ discretionary power not to prosecute certain cases.
Decision: The court set a high threshold for standing in matters of public law; generally, claimants must show direct interest.
Significance: Clarified limits of standing in judicial review.
4. Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179
Issue: Remedies available in administrative law, particularly certiorari.
Facts: Challenged a school board’s decision.
Decision: The court emphasized certiorari as a tool to quash unlawful administrative decisions.
Significance: Reinforced the remedy of quashing orders as central to judicial review.
5. Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560
Issue: Delegation of administrative powers and procedural aspects.
Facts: A minister’s powers were exercised by officials on his behalf.
Decision: The court recognized the “Carltona principle” allowing officials to exercise ministerial powers.
Significance: Important for procedural efficiency in administrative decision-making and review.
Summary Table
| Case | Procedural Aspect | Principle Established | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Procedural fairness | Right to be heard essential | Fundamental natural justice principle |
| Wednesbury (1948) | Grounds for review | Unreasonableness test | Limits on administrative discretion |
| National Federation (1982) | Locus standi | Standing must show direct interest | Limits frivolous claims |
| Board of Education v Rice (1911) | Remedies | Certiorari quashes unlawful acts | Central judicial review remedy |
| Carltona (1943) | Delegation | Officials can exercise ministerial powers | Procedural efficiency principle |
Conclusion
Filing review applications must comply with procedural requirements such as timelines, forms, and grounds.
Various remedies ensure administrative bodies act lawfully and fairly.
Locus standi balances access to justice and prevents misuse of legal processes.
Case laws establish foundational principles guiding how courts and tribunals assess administrative actions procedurally and substantively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments