Failure to consider relevant considerations
Failure to Consider Relevant Considerations
What is the Doctrine?
Administrative decision-makers are required to take into account all relevant considerations when making decisions.
Failure to consider relevant matters, or conversely considering irrelevant factors, is a ground for judicial review.
The doctrine ensures rationality, fairness, and legality in administrative decisions.
It prevents arbitrary, biased, or uninformed decisions.
Elements of the Doctrine
Relevant Considerations: These are facts, laws, policies, or circumstances the decision-maker must or should take into account.
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Considerations: Some factors are legally mandatory; others are discretionary but may still influence the decision.
Failure to Consider: If the decision-maker ignores or fails to weigh relevant factors, courts may invalidate the decision.
Materiality: The overlooked consideration must be material to the decision’s outcome.
Important Case Laws on Failure to Consider Relevant Considerations
Case 1: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister failed to consider a relevant report and certain facts regarding a mining lease application.
Significance:
The High Court held that ignoring relevant materials or facts that are material to the decision amounted to a failure to consider relevant considerations.
The decision was quashed because the Minister did not take into account all material considerations.
Case 2: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts:
A local authority imposed conditions on a cinema license.
Significance:
Established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" principle but importantly highlighted the duty to consider relevant matters.
Although primarily about unreasonableness, it underscored failure to consider relevant factors can render a decision unreasonable.
Case 3: Environmental Protection Authority v. Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477
Facts:
The EPA granted licenses without considering all environmental factors.
Significance:
The High Court ruled that failure to consider relevant environmental impacts was a jurisdictional error.
Decision was invalidated on grounds that mandatory considerations were ignored.
Case 4: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
The decision-maker failed to adequately consider the evidence about the appellant’s claims in a visa cancellation matter.
Significance:
The High Court emphasized that a failure to consider relevant evidence or material could be a ground of invalidity.
It reinforced procedural fairness and thorough consideration of relevant materials.
Case 5: Project Blue Sky Inc v. Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Facts:
The ABA made regulations without considering mandatory criteria outlined in legislation.
Significance:
The High Court held that failure to consider mandatory relevant considerations was a jurisdictional error.
Reinforced that statutory requirements of considerations must be met.
Summary
Failure to consider relevant considerations undermines the legality of administrative decisions.
Courts carefully examine whether decision-makers have taken into account all mandatory and material factors.
Landmark cases like Peko-Wallsend, Minister v. Li, and Project Blue Sky demonstrate how omission of relevant factors leads to invalidation of decisions.
The doctrine protects citizens by ensuring that administrative decisions are reasoned, fair, and within legal bounds.
RELATED Blog
0 comments