Unreasonableness (Wednesbury and beyond in Australia)
Unreasonableness in Australian Administrative Law
What is Unreasonableness?
Unreasonableness is a ground for judicial review of administrative decisions, where a decision is so irrational or illogical that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. It challenges decisions that are arbitrary or capricious.
The Wednesbury Principle
Originates from the UK case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223.
The test states: A decision is unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
In Australia, Wednesbury unreasonableness is a high threshold — courts are generally deferential to administrative discretion.
Beyond Wednesbury: Evolution in Australia
Australian courts have evolved the standard to include proportionality and a more structured review of reasonableness.
The “irrationality” standard has been applied flexibly.
Cases such as Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) have refined the test, emphasizing logic and evidentiary basis.
Key Australian Case Laws on Unreasonableness
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK)
Summary: Established the original Wednesbury test.
Significance: Provided the foundation for unreasonableness review — decisions must be so absurd that no reasonable authority would make them.
Note: Though a UK case, foundational for Australian law.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts: Challenge to a Ministerial decision refusing a protection visa.
Held: The High Court clarified that Wednesbury unreasonableness involves a lack of logical or rational basis, not mere disagreement.
Significance: Refined unreasonableness standard to require more rigorous, reasoned analysis of decision-making.
3. Craig v. South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts: Review of administrative decisions for procedural fairness and reasonableness.
Held: Court emphasized that unreasonableness is a ground of review distinct from procedural fairness.
Significance: Clarified the scope and application of unreasonableness in Australian administrative law.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v. Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: Challenge to statutory ouster clause limiting judicial review.
Held: The High Court confirmed that unreasonableness review protects the rule of law and judicial oversight.
Significance: Affirmed importance of unreasonableness as a safeguard against arbitrary administrative power.
5. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
Facts: Applicant challenged refusal of protection visa as unreasonable.
Held: Court upheld decision, applying Wednesbury test and highlighting deference to administrative expertise.
Significance: Reinforced the high threshold for unreasonableness and judicial deference.
Summary
Wednesbury unreasonableness is a stringent test for challenging administrative decisions.
Australian courts have developed a more nuanced approach, incorporating logic, evidence, and proportionality.
Unreasonableness remains an essential ground protecting against irrational, capricious, or arbitrary decisions.
The threshold is high, with courts typically deferring to administrative expertise unless the decision is manifestly illogical.
Recent cases emphasize reasoned decision-making rather than mere disagreement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments