Judicial review of unreasonableness in Australia
Judicial Review of Unreasonableness in Australia
What is Judicial Review of Unreasonableness?
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the decisions of administrative bodies or government officials to ensure they comply with the law. One ground of judicial review is unreasonableness, where a decision is so irrational or illogical that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.
In Australia, unreasonableness is part of the broader ground of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and common law principles. This ground is often linked to the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness, derived from English law.
The Concept of Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Originating from the UK case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), a decision is unreasonable if it is “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.”
In Australia, courts have adapted this to their context, sometimes showing reluctance to intervene except in clear cases of extreme unreasonableness.
Key Case Law on Judicial Review of Unreasonableness in Australia
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
Li’s application for a protection visa was refused by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The question was whether the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable.
Principle:
The High Court held that unreasonableness is a ground for review but must be applied with restraint. A decision is unreasonable only if it lacks an evident logical basis.
Outcome:
The Court emphasized that courts must not substitute their own view for that of the decision-maker unless the decision is clearly irrational or illogical.
Significance:
Li is the leading Australian case on unreasonableness, setting a high threshold for overturning decisions on this ground.
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts:
A local authority imposed a condition banning children under 15 from attending Sunday cinema performances. The company challenged this as unreasonable.
Principle:
This established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test — a decision is unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.
Significance:
Although a UK case, it heavily influences Australian jurisprudence on unreasonableness.
3. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
Facts:
Jia Legeng sought judicial review of an immigration decision based on alleged unreasonableness.
Principle:
The High Court reiterated that courts must be cautious in applying unreasonableness, respecting the expertise and discretion of administrative decision-makers.
Significance:
The case affirms that unreasonableness is not simply a disagreement with the decision but a decision so illogical it warrants intervention.
4. Enfield City Council v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135
Facts:
The Development Assessment Commission made a planning decision challenged for being unreasonable.
Principle:
The High Court said that unreasonableness requires that the decision be "so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it."
Significance:
This case confirms the high threshold for proving unreasonableness and that courts should generally respect the administrative body's decision unless it is manifestly flawed.
5. Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General for Queensland (2015) 256 CLR 317
Facts:
This case involved a local government decision challenged for unreasonableness.
Principle:
The Court confirmed the principle from Li and emphasized that unreasonableness is about the decision’s legal rationality, not its merits.
Significance:
It reinforced that unreasonableness does not allow courts to reconsider factual findings unless the decision is legally untenable.
6. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
This case discussed the scope of judicial review, including unreasonableness, in administrative decisions.
Principle:
The High Court clarified that unreasonableness is only one of several grounds for judicial review and must be applied cautiously.
Significance:
It confirmed that unreasonableness should be used sparingly and is not a ground to substitute court’s own view of the merits.
Summary of Principles on Judicial Review of Unreasonableness in Australia
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| High Threshold for Unreasonableness | Decision must be so illogical that no reasonable person would make it | Minister for Immigration v Li |
| Respect for Administrative Expertise | Courts defer to the decision-maker’s judgment unless irrational | Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng |
| Unreasonableness is not Merits Review | Courts do not reassess facts or merits, only legal rationality | Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General |
| Wednesbury Test Adopted and Modified | Australian courts apply a version of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test | Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury |
| Manifest Unreasonableness Required | Only manifestly unreasonable decisions can be overturned | Enfield City Council v Development Assessment Commission |
Conclusion
Judicial review of unreasonableness in Australia is a carefully limited ground of review designed to prevent courts from overstepping into administrative decision-making. The High Court has emphasized a high threshold — decisions must be irrational or illogical to an extreme degree before courts intervene. This maintains a balance between protecting individuals from unfair decisions and respecting the expertise and discretion of administrative bodies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments