Grounds of judicial review in Australia
Grounds of Judicial Review in Australia
Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise the legality of decisions made by administrative bodies or public officials. The grounds of judicial review are legal bases on which a court may intervene to set aside or quash an administrative decision.
Main Grounds of Judicial Review in Australia
Jurisdictional Error
When a decision-maker acts outside their legal authority or fails to comply with the conditions that grant them power.
Breach of Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness)
Failure to observe principles like the right to a fair hearing or the absence of bias.
Error of Law
Incorrect interpretation or application of the law by the decision-maker.
Unreasonableness (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it.
Improper Purpose
Exercising power for a purpose other than that for which it was conferred.
Failure to Consider Relevant Factors / Considering Irrelevant Factors
Decision-makers must take into account relevant considerations and ignore irrelevant ones.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Grounds of Judicial Review
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013)
Ground: Jurisdictional error
Facts: The Migration Review Tribunal dismissed a refugee claim summarily without providing reasons.
Held: The High Court held that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to give reasons, as this denied procedural fairness and proper exercise of power.
Significance: Confirmed that jurisdictional error can arise from failure to observe procedural fairness and clarifies its central role in Australian judicial review.
2. Kioa v West (1985)
Ground: Breach of Natural Justice
Facts: The Minister cancelled a deportation order without informing the person or giving an opportunity to respond.
Held: The High Court ruled that the procedural fairness requirement applies to administrative decisions affecting rights and interests, and a failure to provide a hearing was unlawful.
Significance: Landmark case establishing natural justice as a fundamental ground of judicial review in Australia.
3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Ground: Unreasonableness (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Facts: A local authority imposed a condition on a cinema license that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays.
Held: The court established that a decision is unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance: The classic test for unreasonableness still applied in Australian courts, limiting intervention to decisions outside the bounds of reasonableness.
4. Craig v South Australia (1995)
Ground: Error of Law and Jurisdictional Error
Facts: The case dealt with whether an administrative decision involved a jurisdictional error by misinterpreting the law.
Held: The High Court clarified that errors of law made by administrative bodies may amount to jurisdictional errors and be subject to review.
Significance: Clarified the close relationship between jurisdictional error and errors of law in Australian judicial review.
5. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986)
Ground: Failure to consider relevant factors / Improper purpose
Facts: The Minister failed to take into account relevant information regarding mining lease applications.
Held: The High Court held that the decision was invalid for failing to consider relevant factors and possibly for improper purpose.
Significance: Emphasized that decision-makers must consider all relevant matters and act only for proper purposes.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Ground of Review | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Minister for Immigration v Li | Jurisdictional error | Failure to provide reasons can amount to jurisdictional error |
| Kioa v West | Breach of natural justice | Right to a fair hearing is fundamental |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Unreasonableness (Wednesbury) | Established test for unreasonable decisions |
| Craig v South Australia | Error of law & jurisdictional error | Errors of law by admin bodies can be jurisdictional errors |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko | Failure to consider relevant factors / improper purpose | Decision invalid if relevant factors ignored or wrong purpose |
Conclusion
In Australia, judicial review serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure administrative decisions comply with the law, fairness, and rationality. Courts scrutinize decisions for jurisdictional error, procedural fairness, legal correctness, reasonableness, and proper exercise of power. The above cases form the backbone of judicial oversight in administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments