Jurisdictional error in High Court jurisprudence
Jurisdictional Error in High Court Jurisprudence
I. What is Jurisdictional Error?
Jurisdictional error occurs when a decision-maker exceeds or fails to exercise their lawful authority (jurisdiction) granted by legislation.
It is a fundamental error affecting the validity of a decision.
A decision affected by jurisdictional error is void or voidable and can be reviewed and overturned by courts through judicial review.
Jurisdictional error contrasts with non-jurisdictional error, which is an error made within the scope of the decision-maker’s powers and usually cannot invalidate a decision.
II. Why is Jurisdictional Error Important?
It protects the rule of law by ensuring that administrative bodies act within the limits set by Parliament.
It maintains separation of powers by ensuring courts can supervise administrative decisions.
It safeguards individuals from unlawful decisions.
III. Key High Court Cases on Jurisdictional Error
1. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
Craig challenged an administrative tribunal’s decision which allegedly did not follow procedural fairness and made an error of law.
Principle:
The High Court clarified the nature of jurisdictional error, stating that jurisdictional error includes:
Acting beyond power,
Failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements,
Making errors about the existence of jurisdictional facts,
Failing to exercise jurisdiction when required.
The Court emphasized that jurisdictional error is a question of law which courts have supervisory jurisdiction to review.
Significance:
Provided a clear categorization of different types of jurisdictional errors.
Established that jurisdictional error is a threshold concept distinguishing void from valid decisions.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
Mr. Li’s visa cancellation was reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT allegedly made errors of law in the decision.
Principle:
The High Court held that a jurisdictional error occurs when a tribunal fails to decide according to law or exceeds its power.
Reaffirmed that failure to provide procedural fairness or to consider relevant matters could amount to jurisdictional error.
The Court emphasized that the decision-maker’s authority depends on making a valid decision according to the statute.
Significance:
Marked a modern reaffirmation and elaboration of the concept of jurisdictional error.
Highlighted that jurisdictional error includes errors in fact-finding where those facts are jurisdictional facts.
The case clarified the scope of judicial review post the Migration Act reforms.
3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
The case involved a privative clause (attempting to restrict judicial review) in the Migration Act.
Principle:
The High Court held that Parliament cannot validly exclude judicial review of jurisdictional error.
Jurisdictional error is a fundamental limit on administrative power, and courts have an inherent constitutional role to review such errors.
Any clause attempting to exclude review for jurisdictional error is invalid.
Significance:
This case is a cornerstone of judicial review.
It establishes that jurisdictional error is non-negotiable and protects against unlawful administrative action.
Confirms the constitutional foundation of judicial review in Australia.
4. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Facts:
The applicant sought review of a refugee decision made without adequate consideration of procedural fairness.
Principle:
The High Court reiterated that failure to observe procedural fairness requirements can amount to jurisdictional error.
The decision-maker must act within the law and fairly to make a valid decision.
Significance:
Strengthened the connection between procedural fairness and jurisdictional error.
Confirmed that denial of natural justice invalidates the decision.
5. Craig v The Minister for Health (WA) (2016) 259 CLR 679
Facts:
The case dealt with whether a public official had jurisdiction to make a particular health order.
Principle:
The Court held that acting outside the scope of statutory powers (e.g., making orders not authorized by the statute) constitutes jurisdictional error.
Emphasized that jurisdictional error includes acting in bad faith or failing to apply the correct legal test.
Significance:
Reinforced that subjective or bad faith decision-making can amount to jurisdictional error.
Confirmed that the legality of the decision depends on proper application of the law.
6. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Facts:
The decision-maker made an error concerning a factual matter essential to jurisdiction.
Principle:
The Court found that a mistake about a jurisdictional fact (a fact which determines whether the decision-maker has power) is jurisdictional error.
Emphasized the importance of jurisdictional facts in delimiting the scope of authority.
Significance:
Clarified that errors of law relating to jurisdictional facts are jurisdictional errors.
Helped define how courts differentiate errors that are reviewable vs those which are not.
IV. Summary Table of Jurisdictional Error Types
| Type of Jurisdictional Error | Description | Key Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Acting beyond power | Exercising power not granted by law | Craig v South Australia |
| Failure to observe procedural fairness | Denial of natural justice | Eshetu |
| Error as to jurisdictional facts | Mistake about a fact that confers power | Miah |
| Failing to exercise jurisdiction when required | Refusing to decide when obliged | Li |
| Acting in bad faith or using improper purpose | Exercising power for illegitimate reason | Craig v Minister for Health (WA) |
V. Conclusion
Jurisdictional error is a core concept in Australian administrative law, serving as a critical check on administrative power. High Court jurisprudence has:
Clearly defined what constitutes jurisdictional error.
Emphasized that jurisdictional error is always reviewable, regardless of privative clauses.
Highlighted the essential connection between jurisdictional error, procedural fairness, and the rule of law.
Understanding these cases provides the framework for identifying when an administrative decision crosses legal boundaries and is invalid.
RELATED Blog
0 comments