Administrative law and business licensing in Melbourne
Administrative Law & Business Licensing in Melbourne
Overview:
Business licenses are often issued or refused by administrative agencies under statutory schemes.
Administrative law governs how these decisions are made, ensuring they are lawful, fair, and reasonable.
Challenges to licensing decisions typically involve judicial review on grounds like jurisdictional error, procedural fairness, or unreasonableness.
Licensing decisions can affect businesses’ ability to operate, so fair process and lawful exercise of power are crucial.
Key Administrative Law Issues in Business Licensing
Jurisdiction and Ultra Vires
Did the licensing authority act within its statutory power?
Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
Was the applicant given a fair hearing before refusal or cancellation?
Reasonableness / Discretionary Power
Was the decision to grant or refuse a license reasonable and rational?
Legitimate Expectation
Did the applicant have a legitimate expectation of being granted or renewed a license based on past conduct or promises?
Reviewability of Decisions
Are licensing decisions subject to judicial review or merits review by tribunals?
Case Law Illustrations (Australia/Melbourne Context)
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Relevance: Although about immigration, this High Court case clarified jurisdictional error and the standards for lawful administrative decision-making.
Principle: Licensing decisions must be made according to law, and any legal error affecting the decision is reviewable.
Impact: Set out the scope of jurisdictional error applicable to business licensing decisions.
2. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts: An individual was denied a visa without being given an opportunity to respond.
Principle: Establishes the requirement of procedural fairness in administrative decisions, including licensing.
Impact: Licensing authorities must provide fair hearing before refusal or cancellation.
3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Relevance: Introduced the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
Principle: Courts will only intervene in licensing decisions if they are irrational or unreasonable.
Impact: Licensing decisions must be within a range of reasonable outcomes.
4. Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88
Context: This case dealt with statutory interpretation and procedural fairness.
Relevance: Reflects on administrative decision-making in regulatory frameworks, relevant to licensing schemes.
Impact: Emphasizes careful compliance with statutory criteria in licensing decisions.
5. Bradley v Commonwealth (1973) 129 CLR 462
Facts: Examined misuse of power by administrative decision-makers.
Principle: Licensing authorities must exercise power for the correct purpose, not improper motives.
Impact: Prevents abuse of discretion in licensing decisions.
Practical Application
When a business license is refused or revoked in Melbourne, affected parties can seek judicial review on these grounds.
Licensing bodies must follow fair procedures — e.g., informing applicants of concerns, allowing responses.
Decisions must be rational and within legal power, not arbitrary or influenced by improper factors.
If a license has been routinely renewed, businesses may claim legitimate expectation for renewal unless there is a good reason not to.
Summary Table
| Issue | Case Example | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Error | Minister for Immigration v Li | Decision must comply with law |
| Procedural Fairness | Kioa v West | Right to fair hearing |
| Reasonableness | Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Only intervene if decision irrational |
| Legitimate Expectation | Applicant VEAL of 2002 | Fairness in renewal processes |
| Abuse of Power | Bradley v Commonwealth | Power must be exercised properly |
RELATED Blog
0 comments