Reasonableness review after Wednesbury in Australia
Reasonableness Review after Wednesbury in Australia
Reasonableness review is a fundamental concept in administrative law that courts use to oversee the decisions of administrative bodies and public officials. It assesses whether a decision made by an administrative authority is rational or logical within the scope of their powers.
The origin of the modern concept of unreasonableness review is the UK case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, which introduced the standard for judicial review where courts would intervene if a decision was “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.” This is known as the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
Australian Adaptation of Wednesbury Reasonableness
Australia adopted and adapted the Wednesbury principle but has evolved its own nuanced approach. Australian courts often use terms like “irrationality,” “unreasonableness,” or “manifest unreasonableness”. The courts look at whether the decision was one that a reasonable decision-maker could make, considering the facts and law.
Key points in Australian reasonableness review:
It is a high threshold; courts do not substitute their own judgment lightly.
The review focuses on the decision-making process and whether the outcome is defensible, not the merits.
Reasonableness is often linked with proportionality and fairness.
Courts may also consider procedural fairness and jurisdictional errors related to reasonableness.
Key Australian Cases on Reasonableness Review after Wednesbury
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Issue: Whether the decision of the Immigration Minister refusing a protection visa was unreasonable.
Facts: The Minister found the applicant not credible based on the evidence, but the applicant challenged the decision’s reasonableness.
Holding: The High Court emphasized that courts should assess whether the decision was “irrational or illogical” or “lacking an evident and intelligible justification.”
Significance: This case refined the Wednesbury test by focusing on the reasoning process and clarity of the decision, establishing that unreasonableness is about lack of rationality or justification, not mere disagreement.
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (Influential UK authority cited in Australia)
Issue: Whether a local authority's condition on cinema opening hours was so unreasonable that it warranted judicial interference.
Holding: The court held that the decision would only be overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever impose such a condition.
Significance: This case set the foundational standard for reasonableness review, heavily influencing Australian administrative law.
3. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Issue: The standard of proof and evidentiary reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Facts: Concerned the standard of proof in civil matters with serious consequences.
Holding: The High Court held that the seriousness of the allegation affects the level of satisfaction required.
Significance: While not a direct Wednesbury case, it influences reasonableness by requiring more rigorous reasoning and evidence where decisions have serious consequences.
4. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Issue: Reasonableness of administrative decisions involving discretion and factual considerations.
Facts: The Minister made a decision related to land claims.
Holding: The Court held that the decision was lawful, but emphasized the requirement that discretionary decisions must be rational and based on relevant considerations.
Significance: This case highlights that reasonableness involves proper consideration of relevant factors and rationality in administrative decisions.
5. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Issue: Standard of review and reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Holding: The High Court articulated that judicial review for unreasonableness requires that a decision be more than just wrong; it must be so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
Significance: This case reinforced the Wednesbury principle’s high threshold and clarified the approach to reasonableness in Australian administrative law.
Summary of Reasonableness Review in Australia
The Wednesbury unreasonableness test forms the core basis but is adapted to the Australian context with a focus on rationality, justification, and proper process.
Courts do not lightly interfere with administrative decisions unless the decision is irrational, lacks justification, or is manifestly unreasonable.
Decisions affecting serious rights or interests require stronger reasons (Briginshaw principle).
Reasonableness involves consideration of relevant factors and avoidance of irrelevant considerations.
Judicial review looks at reasoning and legality, not merits, ensuring administrative bodies stay within legal bounds.
RELATED Blog
0 comments