Improper purpose in Australian administrative law
Improper Purpose in Australian Administrative Law
What is Improper Purpose?
In Australian administrative law, improper purpose is a ground for judicial review where a public official or decision-maker exercises a statutory power but uses it for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred. Even if the decision-maker has the power to make a decision, if the exercise of that power is motivated by an irrelevant or unauthorized purpose, the decision can be invalidated.
Why is it Important?
It ensures that public powers are used only for lawful and intended objectives.
Prevents misuse or abuse of discretionary powers.
Protects the rule of law by holding decision-makers accountable.
Supports fairness and good governance.
Key Principles:
Purpose must be the dominant or substantial reason for the decision.
Good faith is not a defense if the power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose.
The court examines the decision-maker’s motives and context.
The improper purpose must be established on the evidence and is a question of law.
Leading Case Laws on Improper Purpose in Australian Administrative Law
1. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The Minister refused to approve mining leases based on undisclosed reasons.
Issue: Whether the Minister exercised power for an improper purpose.
Holding: The High Court held that if a decision-maker takes into account irrelevant considerations or acts for an improper purpose, the decision is invalid.
Significance: Established that improper purpose invalidates decisions even if made in good faith.
2. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Facts: The government refused to reappoint a tribunal member purportedly for political reasons.
Issue: Whether the power to appoint was exercised for an improper purpose.
Holding: The High Court emphasized that the power must be used for the purpose intended by legislation.
Significance: Confirmed improper purpose as a ground for judicial review and emphasized the need to identify the true purpose of the power.
3. Wednesbury Corporation v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1963] 2 QB 43 (English case but influential in Australia)
Facts: The decision involved unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Relevance: Though primarily about irrationality, Wednesbury principles have influenced Australian law regarding improper purpose and abuse of power.
Significance: Clarified limits on discretionary powers.
4. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Facts: The Minister’s delegate refused a visa allegedly considering irrelevant criteria.
Issue: Whether the decision was made for an improper purpose.
Holding: The High Court found that decision-makers must not consider irrelevant factors or improper purposes.
Significance: Reinforced improper purpose as an important ground for review, especially in immigration decisions.
5. Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
Facts: The Public Service Board dismissed an employee but allegedly for reasons beyond proper scope.
Issue: Whether the dismissal was based on improper purpose.
Holding: The High Court held that decisions must be free of improper purposes and strictly within statutory authority.
Significance: Highlighted improper purpose as relevant in employment and administrative decisions.
6. R v Director of Public Prosecutions; Ex parte Culleton (2003) 198 ALR 263
Facts: Prosecutorial discretion exercised in a manner alleged to be for an improper purpose.
Issue: Whether the discretion was abused.
Holding: The court stated that improper purpose invalidates exercise of discretion.
Significance: Affirmed improper purpose as a limitation on executive discretion.
Summary
Improper purpose occurs when a decision-maker uses a power for something other than the statutory objective.
It is a ground for judicial review distinct from illegality or unreasonableness.
Australian courts examine the true purpose behind the decision.
Even decisions made in good faith can be invalidated if motivated by an improper purpose.
Case law such as Peko-Wallsend, Quin, and Wu Shan Liang are seminal in defining and applying the doctrine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments