Role of Supreme Court in controlling administrative action
Role of Supreme Courts in Controlling Administrative Action
Key Functions:
Judicial review of administrative decisions: Courts examine if decisions are made within legal authority and follow proper procedures.
Ensuring legality: Review for ultra vires actions—whether a decision is beyond the power granted by law.
Upholding procedural fairness (natural justice): Ensure decisions are made with fairness, including the right to be heard and absence of bias.
Reviewing for jurisdictional error: Determining whether a decision-maker has made a fundamental error affecting jurisdiction.
Enforcing compliance with statutory requirements.
Providing remedies: Such as certiorari (quashing decisions), mandamus (compelling actions), injunctions, and declarations.
Case Law Illustrating the Role of Supreme Courts in Controlling Administrative Action
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK case, influential in Australia)
Facts:
A local authority imposed conditions on a cinema licence which were challenged as unreasonable.
Issue:
Whether the court can intervene when a decision is unreasonable.
Held:
The court stated it would only interfere if the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it ("Wednesbury unreasonableness").
Significance:
Supreme Courts apply the Wednesbury test to review administrative decisions for irrationality.
Sets a high threshold for intervention on grounds of unreasonableness.
2. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister refused a mining lease application based on considerations allegedly irrelevant to the statutory scheme.
Issue:
Whether the decision-maker misused delegated power by ignoring mandatory considerations.
Held:
The High Court found the Minister failed to take into account relevant statutory considerations.
Role of Supreme Courts:
State Supreme Courts often act as intermediate reviewers of such decisions before final appeal.
They ensure administrative authorities observe statutory mandates.
3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
Parliament introduced a privative clause intended to prevent courts from reviewing administrative decisions.
Issue:
Whether Supreme Courts could review decisions despite such clauses.
Held:
The High Court affirmed that Supreme Courts retain jurisdiction to review jurisdictional errors despite privative clauses.
Significance:
Confirms the constitutional role of Supreme Courts in supervising administrative law.
Protects against abuses of delegated power through judicial oversight.
4. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
The Department of Immigration decided to deport Mr. Kioa without giving him a chance to respond to adverse information.
Issue:
Whether the decision breached procedural fairness.
Held:
The High Court held the decision was invalid due to failure to observe natural justice.
Role of Supreme Courts:
Supreme Courts routinely apply natural justice principles in reviewing administrative decisions.
They ensure fairness in administrative processes and can quash decisions that violate it.
5. R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Facts:
A magistrate was alleged to have exceeded jurisdiction in making a decision.
Issue:
Whether the magistrate acted ultra vires.
Held:
The High Court confirmed that acts beyond legal authority are void.
Role of Supreme Courts:
Supreme Courts can set aside decisions made outside jurisdiction.
They uphold the rule of law by maintaining limits on administrative powers.
6. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Facts:
Parents were not given an opportunity to be heard before a tribunal decided on the fate of a deceased child’s remains.
Issue:
Whether procedural fairness was breached.
Held:
The High Court held there was a breach of natural justice.
Role of Supreme Courts:
Supreme Courts ensure administrative decisions affecting significant interests comply with procedural fairness.
7. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
An immigration officer made a refusal decision allegedly without proper consideration of evidence.
Issue:
Whether the decision was legally unreasonable.
Held:
The High Court emphasized that the reasonableness of administrative decisions is a reviewable ground.
Supreme Courts' Role:
Review reasonableness and ensure decisions are legally sound.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Role of Supreme Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Wednesbury (1948) | Unreasonableness test | Courts review decisions for irrationality |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs | Consideration of mandatory factors | Ensuring statutory compliance |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 | Privative clauses and jurisdiction | Uphold jurisdiction despite privative clauses |
| Kioa v West | Procedural fairness | Guarantee natural justice in administrative acts |
| R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton | Ultra vires actions | Set aside acts beyond legal authority |
| Annetts v McCann | Procedural fairness (hearing rights) | Enforce fair hearing procedures |
| Minister for Immigration v Li | Legal unreasonableness | Review for legal error and reasonableness |
Conclusion
The Supreme Courts are the primary guardians of legality and fairness in administrative law. They:
Ensure that administrative bodies act within their legal powers.
Protect individuals by requiring procedural fairness.
Control unreasonable or irrational decisions.
Maintain the rule of law by correcting ultra vires acts.
Protect judicial review rights even in the face of legislative attempts to limit it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments