Grounds of judicial review in Melbourne courts
Grounds of Judicial Review in Melbourne Courts
Judicial review allows courts to examine administrative decisions to ensure they are lawful. The main grounds recognized in Australian courts are:
Jurisdictional error
Error of law on the face of the record
Procedural fairness (natural justice)
Unreasonableness or irrationality
Improper purpose or abuse of power
Case Law Explaining Each Ground in Detail
1. Jurisdictional Error
Definition: Occurs when a decision-maker acts outside the scope of the authority given by law, including failure to consider a relevant matter or considering irrelevant matters.
Case: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
The immigration minister made a decision on a visa refusal.
Issue:
Whether the minister committed a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the applicant’s circumstances.
Held:
The High Court held that the minister made a jurisdictional error by not properly applying the statutory criteria.
Significance:
Established a broad and important test for jurisdictional error in Australia; any legal error that goes to power invalidates the decision.
2. Error of Law on the Face of the Record
Definition: Legal errors evident from the decision documents themselves.
Case: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
Administrative decisions based on an incorrect interpretation of law.
Issue:
Whether an error of law invalidated the decision.
Held:
The High Court emphasized courts must intervene where there is an error of law apparent on the record.
Significance:
Reinforced judicial review as a check on legal errors in administrative decisions.
3. Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
Definition: Requirement that affected persons receive a fair hearing and decisions are made without bias.
Case: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
An immigrant was deported without notice or opportunity to respond.
Issue:
Whether failure to give procedural fairness invalidated the decision.
Held:
The High Court held that natural justice applied, and the failure to give the person a chance to be heard was a ground for judicial review.
Significance:
Landmark case on procedural fairness applying to administrative decisions.
4. Unreasonableness or Irrationality
Definition: A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Case: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The minister made a decision that was arguably unreasonable.
Issue:
Whether the decision was unreasonable and therefore invalid.
Held:
The High Court recognized unreasonableness as a ground but applied it narrowly.
Significance:
Shows that courts are cautious with this ground, applying it only to decisions outside the range of reasonable responses.
5. Improper Purpose / Abuse of Power
Definition: When a power is exercised for a purpose other than that intended by the statute.
Case: Bradley v Commonwealth (1973) 129 CLR 462
Facts:
Decision-maker acted for an improper purpose not authorized by law.
Issue:
Whether exercising power for an improper purpose invalidated the decision.
Held:
The High Court held the decision was unlawful due to abuse of power.
Significance:
Clarifies that misuse of power is a valid ground for judicial review.
Summary Table
| Ground of Review | Definition | Leading Case (Australia) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Error | Acting outside power or misapplying law | Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) |
| Error of Law on the Record | Legal error evident on decision docs | Craig v South Australia (1995) |
| Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice) | Right to fair hearing, unbiased process | Kioa v West (1985) |
| Unreasonableness/Irrationality | Decision no reasonable authority could make | Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko (1986) |
| Improper Purpose / Abuse of Power | Using power for unauthorized reasons | Bradley v Commonwealth (1973) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments