The writ of certiorari in Australian administrative law
The Writ of Certiorari in Australian Administrative Law
What is the Writ of Certiorari?
The writ of certiorari is an ancient common law remedy used by courts to quash decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies where those decisions were made unlawfully or beyond their jurisdiction (ultra vires).
In modern Australian administrative law, certiorari is a key judicial review remedy, allowing courts to quash invalid administrative decisions that suffer from jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, or misuse of power.
Purpose of Certiorari:
To correct errors of law by administrative decision-makers.
To ensure legality and compliance with statutory powers.
To uphold procedural fairness.
To maintain the rule of law by holding public authorities accountable.
Grounds for Certiorari:
Jurisdictional error (acting beyond the powers granted).
Failure to observe natural justice (procedural fairness).
Improper exercise of discretion.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements.
Bad faith or bias.
Important Case Law on the Writ of Certiorari in Australian Administrative Law
1. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts: Craig challenged a decision made by the South Australian Workers Compensation Tribunal.
Issue: Whether certiorari was available despite the existence of a statutory appeal.
Holding: The High Court held certiorari remains available to quash decisions involving jurisdictional error, even if an appeal exists.
Significance: This case reaffirmed certiorari’s role as a fundamental supervisory remedy to control jurisdictional errors.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts: Li sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Minister.
Issue: Clarified the scope of jurisdictional error for certiorari.
Holding: The High Court emphasized that certiorari is available to quash decisions affected by jurisdictional error, such as failing to consider relevant matters.
Significance: This decision clarified modern principles surrounding certiorari and jurisdictional error in administrative law.
3. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts: Kioa was deported without being given a chance to respond to adverse material.
Issue: Whether failure to observe procedural fairness was a jurisdictional error.
Holding: The High Court held that failure to afford natural justice was a jurisdictional error, justifying certiorari.
Significance: Strengthened the link between procedural fairness breaches and certiorari as a remedy.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: The Commonwealth tried to exclude judicial review by ouster clauses.
Issue: Whether certiorari could be ousted by legislation.
Holding: The High Court held ouster clauses cannot exclude certiorari where jurisdictional errors exist.
Significance: This case protects certiorari from being nullified by restrictive statutory provisions, preserving judicial oversight.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts: Applicant challenged a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
Issue: Whether the Tribunal’s failure to consider relevant evidence constituted jurisdictional error.
Holding: The High Court held that certiorari is available to quash decisions based on errors of law affecting jurisdiction.
Significance: Clarified that certiorari can correct errors in factual findings when they involve jurisdictional error.
6. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The Minister made a decision affecting mining leases.
Issue: Whether failure to consider relevant statutory criteria was jurisdictional error.
Holding: The High Court held certiorari was available because of the failure to consider essential legislative criteria.
Significance: Showed certiorari’s importance in enforcing statutory compliance.
7. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts: Lam challenged a ministerial visa cancellation.
Issue: Whether improper exercise of statutory discretion justified certiorari.
Holding: The High Court found certiorari appropriate where the minister’s discretion was exercised unreasonably or unlawfully.
Significance: Reinforced that certiorari ensures lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.
Summary of the Writ of Certiorari in Australian Administrative Law
Certiorari is a powerful remedy for controlling administrative power.
It targets jurisdictional errors, including errors of law, failure of procedural fairness, and misuse of power.
The High Court has consistently protected certiorari from statutory ouster clauses.
Certiorari complements other remedies like prohibition and mandamus but focuses on quashing invalid decisions.
The writ ensures accountability, lawfulness, and fairness in administrative decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments