Error of law on the face of the record
Error of Law on the Face of the Record
What is "Error of Law on the Face of the Record"?
An error of law on the face of the record occurs when a legal mistake is apparent from the official record or document of the decision or judgment itself, without needing external evidence.
It is a classical ground for judicial review or appeal.
The error must be clear and obvious on the record (such as a judgment, order, or decision) and not require extrinsic evidence to be established.
Such errors can include:
Applying the wrong legal principle
Misinterpreting a statute
Incorrectly assuming jurisdiction
Making a decision outside the powers conferred by law
Importance
Courts use this doctrine to ensure legality of administrative or judicial decisions.
It allows a court or appellate body to correct fundamental mistakes without full re-examination of facts.
It protects against ultra vires (beyond power) decisions.
Key Case Laws on Error of Law on the Face of the Record
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts: The Commission made a decision purportedly based on a wrong interpretation of the statute.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that even if a statute attempts to prevent review, a jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record invalidates the decision.
Significance: Expanded judicial review; error on the face of the record renders decisions a nullity.
Impact: This case is fundamental in administrative law for the doctrine of jurisdictional error involving errors on the face of the record.
2. R v. Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 (UK)
Facts: The Visitor of Hull University made a decision involving a legal error evident from the document.
Held: The House of Lords held that an error of law apparent on the face of the record is a ground for quashing the decision.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that courts can review errors plainly visible in decisions or records without detailed fact-finding.
3. Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054 (UK)
Facts: The Council's decision was challenged on grounds that it involved an error of law on the face of the record.
Held: The court quashed the decision, holding that errors of law evident in the record justify judicial intervention.
Significance: Confirms that courts will not hesitate to intervene if legal mistakes appear clearly in official records.
4. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (Australia)
Facts: The applicant challenged a tribunal decision alleging error of law on the face of the record.
Held: The High Court stated that an error of law apparent on the face of the record is a fundamental ground for review.
Significance: Australian courts align with the principle that visible legal errors in decisions are justiciable.
Impact: This case is authoritative in Australian administrative law regarding jurisdictional errors and errors of law on the face of the record.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 (Australia)
Facts: Tribunal made a decision based on incorrect interpretation of a statutory requirement.
Held: The High Court found the decision was invalid due to an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Significance: Reaffirms that courts scrutinize decisions for legal errors visible on the record to protect jurisdictional integrity.
Impact: Emphasized the need for administrative bodies to adhere strictly to statutory mandates.
Summary
Error of law on the face of the record is a powerful judicial review ground allowing courts to correct visible legal mistakes without further evidence.
It ensures decisions are made within legal boundaries.
The Anisminic principle is the cornerstone, broadening the scope to include jurisdictional errors as nullities.
Victorian and Australian courts, following UK precedents, actively apply this doctrine in judicial review to uphold legality.
Cases like Craig, Re Aala, and Page confirm courts’ authority to intervene when legal errors are clear on the decision record.
RELATED Blog
0 comments