Reasonableness as a ground of review in Australian law
⚖️ Reasonableness as a Ground of Judicial Review in Australian Law
In Australian administrative law, reasonableness is one of the fundamental grounds upon which courts review administrative decisions. It ensures that decisions made by public authorities are rational, logical, and within the bounds of acceptable justification. An unreasonable decision may be set aside as invalid or unlawful.
🧩 What is Reasonableness?
Reasonableness means the decision is one that a reasonable person or decision-maker could have made on the facts and law before them.
The concept overlaps with irrationality, unreasonableness, and Wednesbury unreasonableness (from UK law).
It protects against arbitrary, capricious, or absurd decisions.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law Explaining Reasonableness in Australia
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (English but foundational)
Context: Established the famous test of “Wednesbury unreasonableness.”
Principle: A decision is unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Impact on Australia: This standard was adopted by Australian courts and formed the classical framework for unreasonableness review.
Why it matters: Sets the threshold for judicial intervention—courts do not substitute their opinion but intervene only for extreme unreasonableness.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Context: Interpretation of unreasonableness as a ground of review in Australian migration law.
Facts: The applicant challenged a decision of a tribunal rejecting his protection visa application.
Finding: The High Court clarified that unreasonableness requires more than mere error of fact or law; the decision must be “irrational or illogical” to warrant review.
Legal Principle: Australian law applies a reasonableness test that requires substantial illogicality or irrationality, not just disagreement.
Why it matters: Emphasised that unreasonableness is a narrow ground, preventing courts from reweighing evidence or substituting judgment lightly.
3. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Context: The scope of unreasonableness and error of law.
Facts: The High Court examined whether an administrative tribunal’s decision was unreasonable.
Finding: Held that error of law and unreasonableness are separate grounds, but both can invalidate a decision.
Legal Principle: Reasonableness focuses on whether the decision is within a range of rational outcomes based on the evidence.
Why it matters: Clarifies that reasonableness is not just about legality but also factual rationality.
4. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Context: Procedural fairness and reasonableness.
Facts: Decision to deport was challenged on procedural and substantive grounds.
Finding: The Court held decisions affecting rights must be made with fair procedures and the decision itself must be reasonable.
Legal Principle: Reasonableness is intertwined with procedural fairness and natural justice.
Why it matters: Established that unreasonable decisions can flow from procedural flaws, reinforcing reasonableness as a broader concept.
5. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Context: Review of administrative decisions for reasonableness.
Facts: Minister refused consent for land development; the decision was challenged.
Finding: The Court stated that courts should not lightly interfere with discretionary decisions unless manifestly unreasonable.
Legal Principle: Reasonableness includes proportionality and balancing factors, especially in discretionary contexts.
Why it matters: Demonstrates judicial restraint in reviewing discretionary decisions, emphasising reasonableness over correctness.
6. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 267 CLR 611
Context: Review of administrative decisions for reasonableness and legality.
Facts: Applicant challenged refusal of protection visa.
Finding: The High Court confirmed that the reasonableness ground requires the decision to be irrational or illogical, emphasizing a high threshold.
Legal Principle: Reinforces the Li test and clarifies courts should avoid interfering in merits.
Why it matters: Further cements the principle that unreasonableness is a high bar for review.
7. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Context: Appeal against migration decision.
Facts: The High Court reviewed the legal correctness and reasonableness of the Tribunal’s decision.
Finding: The decision was held unlawful because it was based on an error of law and failed reasonableness.
Legal Principle: Illustrates that legal error can make a decision unreasonable.
Why it matters: Links legal errors and unreasonableness, reinforcing grounds of review.
🧾 Summary Table of Reasonableness Ground of Review
| Case | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury | Unreasonableness defined as extreme irrationality. | Classical test for reasonableness. |
| Minister for Immigration v Li | Decision must be irrational or illogical to be unreasonable. | Narrow scope of unreasonableness in Australia. |
| Craig v South Australia | Separates unreasonableness from error of law. | Clarifies factual and legal basis. |
| Kioa v West | Procedural fairness linked to reasonableness. | Combines substantive and procedural review. |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend | Judicial restraint in reviewing discretionary decisions. | Reasonableness includes proportionality. |
| Minister for Immigration v SZMTA | Confirms high threshold for unreasonableness. | Reinforces Li test and narrow application. |
| Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj | Links legal error and unreasonableness. | Shows overlap of grounds of review. |
🔍 Conclusion
Reasonableness in Australian administrative law is a ground of judicial review designed to prevent decisions that are irrational, illogical, or absurd.
It is narrow and deferential, respecting the discretion of administrative decision-makers.
Courts generally intervene only when decisions fall outside the range of acceptable outcomes.
The principle is deeply intertwined with procedural fairness, legal correctness, and discretionary judgment.
Key High Court cases have refined this concept, emphasizing that unreasonableness requires substantial illogicality or irrationality, not mere disagreement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments