Judicial review vs merits review in Melbourne
Judicial Review vs Merits Review (Melbourne/Victoria Context)
Judicial Review
Definition: Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise the exercise of power by administrative bodies to ensure legality.
Scope: Focuses on the lawfulness of a decision (e.g., whether the decision-maker acted within their jurisdiction, followed procedural fairness, or did not act irrationally or unreasonably).
Nature: Concerned with process and legality, not the merits or correctness of the decision.
Remedies: Can quash or set aside decisions, or remit for reconsideration, but does not substitute its own decision.
Courts: In Victoria, judicial review is primarily exercised by the Supreme Court of Victoria (especially the Divisional Court).
Merits Review
Definition: Merits review is a fresh review of the facts, law, and policy by an administrative tribunal.
Scope: Looks at the correctness or desirability of a decision, including factual findings, discretion, and policy considerations.
Nature: It is a substantive review and can substitute the original decision with a new one.
Tribunals: In Victoria, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is the main body conducting merits review.
Purpose: To ensure decisions are fair, reasonable, and appropriate.
Differences Summarized
| Aspect | Judicial Review | Merits Review |
|---|---|---|
| Who conducts? | Courts (Supreme Court Divisional Court) | Administrative tribunals (VCAT) |
| What is reviewed? | Lawfulness, legality, procedural fairness | Correctness and desirability of decision |
| Can decision be changed? | No, only quash or remit | Yes, can substitute decision |
| Focus | Process and jurisdiction | Substance and policy |
Case Laws Illustrating Judicial vs Merits Review in Melbourne/Victoria
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Facts:
The High Court dealt with judicial review principles, focusing on jurisdictional error in administrative decisions.
Judgment:
Clarified the boundaries of judicial review—courts assess whether decision-makers acted within power.
Established that courts do not evaluate the merits but ensure lawful exercise of power.
Emphasized procedural fairness as part of judicial review.
Relevance:
Foundational for understanding judicial review principles in Victoria and Australia.
2. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
The plaintiff challenged a decision under the Migration Act, raising issues about finality clauses and judicial review.
Judgment:
The High Court held that judicial review is a constitutional right unless expressly limited.
Emphasized that judicial review ensures legality regardless of merits or policy considerations.
Relevance:
Strengthens the scope and necessity of judicial review, distinct from merits review.
3. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Facts:
The case involved review of an administrative decision by a tribunal concerning broadcasting licenses.
Judgment:
The High Court differentiated judicial review (legality) from merits review (correctness).
Affirmed tribunals like VCAT have powers of merits review where facts and policies are reconsidered.
Relevance:
Clarifies how merits review operates distinctly in Australia, including in Victoria.
4. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
The case involved judicial review of immigration decisions.
Judgment:
The Court confirmed judicial review focuses on errors of law or jurisdiction.
Merits of the decision (e.g., assessment of facts or discretionary decisions) are left to the original decision-maker or merits review body.
Relevance:
Reinforces limits of judicial review and the role of merits review in correcting substantive errors.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts:
Applicant sought judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision.
Judgment:
The High Court noted that judicial review does not involve re-hearing the case or evaluating merits.
Tribunal decisions are subject to merits review; courts ensure legality and procedural fairness.
Relevance:
Important in showing tribunal decisions in Victoria and Australia are subject to both merits and judicial review, but with different focuses.
Summary
Judicial Review ensures decisions comply with the law, focusing on how decisions are made.
Merits Review looks at what decision is made and can replace it with a better or more appropriate decision.
In Melbourne, courts handle judicial review while VCAT conducts merits review.
Case laws clarify the distinct roles and limits of these reviews, safeguarding legality and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments