Grounds of judicial review in Australian courts
Grounds of Judicial Review in Australian Courts
Judicial review in Australia is a process by which courts supervise the exercise of administrative power to ensure it complies with the law. The key role is to check that administrative decisions are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The grounds for judicial review typically arise under common law and are also codified in statutes such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
Main Grounds of Judicial Review
Jurisdictional Error
Error of Law on the Face of the Record
Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
Unreasonableness (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
Improper Purpose
Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations
Failure to Exercise Discretion
Bad Faith
Detailed Explanation of Grounds with Case Law
1. Jurisdictional Error
This occurs when a decision-maker acts outside the authority granted by the law. A jurisdictional error renders a decision invalid.
Case: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
Li's visa cancellation was challenged on the basis that the decision-maker failed to observe procedural fairness and made an error of law.
Held:
The High Court clarified the concept of jurisdictional error, emphasizing that it includes errors where the decision-maker fails to comply with essential legal requirements, including natural justice.
Importance:
This case is pivotal as it modernized the understanding of jurisdictional error, making it the central ground for judicial review in Australia.
2. Error of Law on the Face of the Record
Occurs when the decision contains an obvious legal error apparent from the decision documents.
Case: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
Craig was convicted by a tribunal that misinterpreted the law.
Held:
The High Court held that the error of law made the tribunal's decision invalid and was reviewable.
Importance:
This established that courts can intervene where there is a clear legal mistake evident without deep investigation.
3. Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice)
Procedural fairness ensures a decision-maker provides a fair hearing and avoids bias.
Case: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Kioa was deported without being given an opportunity to respond to adverse material.
Held:
The High Court emphasized the requirement of procedural fairness, especially where the decision impacts a person's rights or interests.
Importance:
This case firmly established natural justice as a fundamental ground for judicial review in Australia.
4. Unreasonableness (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
A decision is unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.
Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Though an English case, Wednesbury unreasonableness is a well-accepted standard in Australia.
Case: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister’s decision was challenged as unreasonable.
Held:
The High Court held that unreasonableness is a ground but must be more than disagreement; the decision must be irrational in the Wednesbury sense.
Importance:
This case clarifies that courts do not substitute their judgment but only intervene in extreme cases.
5. Improper Purpose
Occurs when a decision-maker uses their power for a purpose other than that intended by the statute.
Case: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
This case also dealt with improper purpose where decision-makers must act within the purpose of their powers.
Case: Gosford City Council v Stout (2006) NSWCA 47
Facts:
A council was alleged to have made a decision for an improper purpose.
Held:
The court held that decision-makers must exercise power solely for the purpose granted.
Importance:
It reinforces the principle that improper use of power invalidates the decision.
6. Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations
Decision-makers must consider relevant factors and ignore irrelevant ones.
Case: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister failed to consider relevant factors.
Held:
The High Court held that failing to take into account relevant considerations amounts to jurisdictional error.
Importance:
This case is foundational in Australian administrative law on relevant/irrelevant considerations.
7. Failure to Exercise Discretion
If a decision-maker fails to exercise discretion when required, it can lead to review.
Case: Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Facts:
A failure to consider relevant evidence and exercise discretion properly.
Held:
The High Court emphasized that decisions must involve a proper exercise of discretion.
8. Bad Faith
A decision made dishonestly or with an ulterior motive can be challenged.
Case: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Held:
The Court recognized bad faith as a ground for review.
Summary Table of Grounds and Leading Cases
| Ground | Description | Leading Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Error | Acting outside legal authority | Minister for Immigration v Li |
| Error of Law | Obvious legal mistake | Craig v South Australia |
| Procedural Fairness | Right to fair hearing | Kioa v West |
| Unreasonableness | Irrational or perverse decisions | Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend |
| Improper Purpose | Use of power for unauthorized reasons | Craig v South Australia; Gosford City Council v Stout |
| Relevant/Irrelevant | Failure to consider relevant factors | Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend |
| Failure to Exercise Discretion | Not using discretion when required | Annetts v McCann |
| Bad Faith | Dishonest or improper motivation | Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend |
Conclusion
Judicial review in Australia is a robust mechanism ensuring administrative decisions are lawful, rational, fair, and within the scope of authority. The High Court’s jurisprudence in these cases forms the backbone of administrative law, helping to balance effective governance with the protection of individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments