Ultra vires doctrine in Australian law
Ultra Vires Doctrine in Australian Law
Meaning:
“Ultra vires” means “beyond the powers.”
If a government body or official acts outside the authority given by legislation (expressly or impliedly), their act is invalid.
Purpose:
Protects individuals and ensures that administrative agencies do not misuse or overstep their legal powers.
Types:
Substantive ultra vires: When an authority makes a decision or takes an action not authorized by the law.
Procedural ultra vires: When an authority fails to follow required procedures set by law.
Key Case Law Explaining Ultra Vires Doctrine in Australia
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
The Minister made a visa refusal decision.
Issue:
Whether the decision was legally valid or affected by jurisdictional error (a form of ultra vires).
Held:
The High Court emphasized that jurisdictional error is a central example of ultra vires. If the decision-maker applies the wrong legal test or ignores statutory limits, the decision is ultra vires and invalid.
Significance:
This case broadened the scope of ultra vires to include errors going to jurisdiction.
2. R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170
Facts:
Concerned Aboriginal land rights and statutory interpretation.
Issue:
Whether certain administrative actions exceeded the powers conferred.
Held:
The Court held acts beyond the statutory grant were ultra vires.
Significance:
Clarified that actions must strictly comply with statutory authority.
3. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
A tribunal made decisions based on a wrong legal interpretation.
Issue:
Whether these decisions were ultra vires due to legal error.
Held:
Decisions made under a wrong legal interpretation are ultra vires.
Significance:
Reinforced that errors of law causing overreach make decisions invalid.
4. R v Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee [1924] 1 KB 171
Facts:
A public authority took action outside its statutory powers.
Issue:
Whether the action was ultra vires.
Held:
The court invalidated the act, emphasizing strict limits on authority powers.
Significance:
Classic authority on ultra vires, highlighting strict boundaries on delegated powers.
5. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts:
Licensing authority imposed unusual conditions.
Issue:
Whether conditions imposed were within powers.
Held:
Decision was valid but introduced unreasonableness as a related ground for review.
Significance:
Though not ultra vires per se, Wednesbury unreasonableness ties into limits on lawful power.
Summary
| Case | Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Minister for Immigration v Li | Jurisdictional error = ultra vires | Broadens ultra vires to legal errors |
| R v Toohey | Strict compliance with statutory authority | Limits administrative action to statutory power |
| Craig v South Australia | Wrong legal interpretation = ultra vires | Legal error invalidates decisions |
| R v Electricity Commissioners | Strict boundaries on power | Classic ultra vires principle |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Introduced unreasonableness test | Adds reasonableness as a control on discretion |
RELATED Blog
0 comments