Tribunals and Merits Review
Tribunals and Merits Review
What is Merits Review?
Merits review is the reconsideration of a decision by an administrative tribunal or authority, assessing not just whether the decision was legally valid, but whether it was the “correct or preferable” decision based on facts, policy, and law. It involves a fresh look at the case, allowing new evidence or material to be considered.
Role of Tribunals in Merits Review
Tribunals are independent bodies designed to:
Provide accessible, informal, and speedy review of administrative decisions.
Exercise administrative justice by reconsidering and possibly substituting original decisions.
Promote fair and just outcomes beyond strict legal correctness.
Reduce burden on courts by resolving disputes in specialized forums.
Key Features of Merits Review Tribunals
They review fact, law, and policy.
They can affirm, vary, or set aside decisions.
They apply a more inquisitorial approach than courts.
They aim to uphold fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Key Case Law on Tribunals and Merits Review
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts: The High Court considered judicial review grounds related to administrative decision-making.
Holding: While the case focused on judicial review, it emphasized the distinction between merits review (tribunals) and judicial review (courts).
Significance: Reinforces that tribunals perform merits review assessing the substance and reasonableness of decisions, while courts focus on legality.
2. Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531
Facts: Concerned judicial oversight of tribunal decisions.
Holding: The High Court recognized the importance of tribunals conducting merits review but held courts maintain supervisory jurisdiction to ensure legality.
Significance: Confirms tribunals’ role in merits review is vital but subject to judicial review safeguards.
3. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Facts: Related to standards of proof but relevant to merits review.
Holding: The High Court clarified the “balance of probabilities” standard is qualified by the seriousness of consequences.
Significance: Influences how tribunals weigh evidence in merits review, applying careful consideration where stakes are high.
4. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Facts: Challenged a tribunal’s merits decision on visa cancellation.
Holding: The High Court clarified the limits of tribunal discretion and the importance of procedural fairness in merits review.
Significance: Highlights tribunals’ responsibility to balance discretion with fairness in reconsidering decisions.
5. Pascoe v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (2015) FCAFC 172
Facts: Taxpayer sought merits review of a taxation assessment.
Holding: The Full Federal Court emphasized that tribunals conducting merits review must exercise independent judgment and not simply rubber-stamp original decisions.
Significance: Reinforces the tribunal’s role as a true merits reviewer, not just an appellate body.
6. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Facts: Related to the scope of judicial review but important for tribunals.
Holding: The High Court clarified separation of powers limits judicial interference in merits decisions but affirmed judicial oversight for legality.
Significance: Defines boundaries between tribunal merits review and court judicial review.
7. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts: Reviewed procedural fairness in tribunal merits review decisions.
Holding: The High Court held that tribunals must observe fairness but have flexibility in procedures.
Significance: Shows tribunals’ procedural latitude in merits review balanced with fairness obligations.
Summary
Tribunals conduct merits review, reconsidering facts, law, and policy to determine the preferable decision.
Merits review is distinct from judicial review, which focuses on legality and procedural correctness.
Tribunals apply a flexible, inquisitorial approach promoting fairness and substantive justice.
Courts recognize tribunals’ expertise but maintain supervisory jurisdiction to protect legality.
Case law consistently affirms tribunals’ role in independent, fair, and thorough merits review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments