Error of law and jurisdictional error in Victorian cases
Error of Law and Jurisdictional Error
What is Error of Law?
An error of law occurs when a decision-maker applies the wrong legal principle, misinterprets a statute, or fails to apply the law correctly.
Traditionally, an error of law is a ground for judicial review because courts ensure administrative bodies act according to law.
It can be either material (affecting the outcome) or non-material.
What is Jurisdictional Error?
A jurisdictional error is a specific type of error of law where a decision-maker acts outside the scope of the powers conferred by the enabling statute.
If a jurisdictional error occurs, the decision is invalid because the decision-maker lacked authority to make it.
Jurisdictional errors can include:
Acting without jurisdiction
Exceeding jurisdiction
Failing to exercise jurisdiction when required
Ignoring mandatory considerations
Acting under a misunderstanding of jurisdictional facts
Importance in Administrative Law
Both concepts are fundamental in judicial review to ensure legality, procedural fairness, and respect for statutory limits.
Victorian courts have developed a rich jurisprudence clarifying these errors to control administrative action.
Key Victorian Case Laws on Error of Law and Jurisdictional Error
1. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326
Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia; influential in Victoria.
Facts: The decision involved a tribunal allegedly misunderstanding or ignoring statutory criteria.
Held: The High Court confirmed that jurisdictional error occurs when a decision-maker fails to properly apply or understand the legal framework prescribed by statute.
Significance: Reinforces that errors of law can be jurisdictional if they cause the decision-maker to exceed or misunderstand their power.
Impact on Victoria: Victorian courts adopt this approach for reviewing tribunal decisions.
2. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Jurisdiction: High Court; widely applied in Victorian administrative law.
Facts: The issue was whether the tribunal’s failure to consider relevant matters amounted to jurisdictional error.
Held: The Court held that a failure to take into account a mandatory relevant consideration is a jurisdictional error.
Significance: Clarifies the importance of mandatory considerations in defining jurisdictional limits.
Impact: Victorian courts rigorously apply this principle to administrative decisions.
3. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The decision-maker failed to consider a mandatory statutory factor.
Held: Failure to consider mandatory factors or applying incorrect legal tests leads to jurisdictional error.
Significance: Established that improper exercise of discretion through ignoring mandatory factors invalidates decisions.
Victorian application: Courts in Victoria use this principle to ensure administrative fairness.
4. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: The case dealt with the limits on judicial review and the concept of jurisdictional error.
Held: The High Court emphasized that jurisdictional errors are not excluded by privative clauses unless explicitly stated.
Significance: Reinforces that jurisdictional errors are fundamental and attract judicial review despite statutory attempts to limit it.
Impact: Victorian courts follow this precedent to uphold judicial review.
5. Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
Facts: The issue was the correctness of decisions made by the Human Rights Commission.
Held: The High Court held that errors of law going to jurisdiction can be reviewed and corrected by courts.
Significance: Clarified the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors.
Victorian context: Victorian courts apply this distinction in supervising administrative decisions.
Summary
Error of law and jurisdictional error are central grounds for judicial review in Victoria.
Jurisdictional error occurs when decision-makers exceed or misunderstand their authority, or ignore mandatory considerations.
Victorian courts, following High Court principles, maintain a strict approach to jurisdictional errors ensuring legality.
Key cases like Craig, Peko-Wallsend, and Plaintiff S157 guide Victorian courts in reviewing administrative decisions.
The doctrines ensure administrative accountability, procedural fairness, and adherence to legal limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments