Grounds of administrative unreasonableness
Grounds of Administrative Unreasonableness
What is Administrative Unreasonableness?
Administrative unreasonableness occurs when a decision made by a public authority or official is so irrational, illogical, or unjustifiable that no reasonable person could have made it. It is a ground for judicial review, meaning courts can overturn decisions deemed unreasonable.
Unreasonableness is often understood through the Wednesbury test, which originated in UK law but has been adapted in Australia.
The Wednesbury Principle
A decision will be unreasonable if it is:
So unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it,
Or manifestly unjust,
Or irrational or lacking an evident logical basis.
It is a high threshold, meaning courts will not easily interfere with administrative discretion.
Key Case Laws Explaining Administrative Unreasonableness
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
(Note: This is an English case but foundational for Australian law.)
Facts:
The local council imposed a condition on a cinema license that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays.
Principle Established:
The court held a decision is unreasonable if it is so absurd or outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have made it.
Relevance:
The “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test underpins Australian judicial review for unreasonableness.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
The Migration Review Tribunal refused an adjournment request without adequate consideration, making an unreasonable decision.
Decision:
The High Court clarified the meaning of unreasonableness in Australian law. It is now understood as a decision that is illogical, irrational, or lacks an evident and intelligible justification.
Significance:
Expanded the concept of unreasonableness.
Decision-making must have a logical basis and consider relevant facts.
Courts have a role in ensuring decisions are not arbitrary.
3. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
Disciplinary proceedings against a public servant raised questions of unreasonableness and procedural fairness.
Decision:
The High Court held that unreasonableness can relate to both procedural and substantive aspects and that a decision can be quashed for unreasonableness if it is so unjust that it is unacceptable.
Significance:
Unreasonableness may include failures in fairness.
The case linked unreasonableness with broader administrative law principles.
4. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister’s decision was challenged because he failed to consider relevant evidence and gave weight to irrelevant factors.
Decision:
The High Court held that failure to consider relevant matters could render a decision unreasonable and invalid.
Significance:
Unreasonableness includes improper consideration or non-consideration of relevant facts.
5. Ski Enterprises Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1994) 181 CLR 483
Facts:
The decision to refuse a lease to a company was challenged as unreasonable.
Decision:
The High Court confirmed that unreasonableness requires a substantial flaw in the decision such that it could not stand.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the high threshold for unreasonableness.
6. SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
Facts:
The Refugee Review Tribunal was accused of ignoring evidence and making an unreasonable decision.
Decision:
The High Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable because it ignored or failed to deal with relevant facts.
Significance:
Showed unreasonableness in failing to address significant evidence.
7. Enfield City Council v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135
Facts:
Planning decisions were challenged on grounds of unreasonableness.
Decision:
The High Court observed that unreasonableness can be established where decisions lack evident logical basis.
Significance:
Confirmed the rationality requirement in administrative decisions.
Summary Table of Grounds of Administrative Unreasonableness
| Case | Key Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury | Wednesbury unreasonableness | Decision so unreasonable no sensible person would make it |
| Minister for Immigration v Li | Irrationality and illogicality | Decision lacks intelligible justification |
| Craig v South Australia | Unreasonableness and fairness | Includes procedural and substantive unfairness |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend | Failure to consider relevant factors | Ignoring key facts makes decision unreasonable |
| SZBEL v Minister for Immigration | Ignoring evidence | Failure to address relevant facts leads to unreasonableness |
| Enfield City Council v DAC | Lack of rational basis | Decisions must have a logical foundation |
Conclusion
Administrative unreasonableness is a critical ground for judicial review ensuring that:
Decisions are not irrational, arbitrary, or capricious.
Decision-makers consider relevant information and avoid irrelevant factors.
Decisions have an evident and logical justification.
There is a high threshold to protect administrative discretion but still prevent abuse.
The case law shows courts balancing respect for discretion with the need to prevent unfair or illogical outcomes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments