Jurisdictional error in administrative adjudication
📘 I. Understanding Jurisdictional Error in Administrative Adjudication
Jurisdictional error occurs when an administrative body or tribunal acts outside the scope of its legal authority or violates a fundamental procedural or substantive limit placed upon it by law. It is a ground for judicial review that can lead to invalidation of administrative decisions.
Key Characteristics:
The error relates to the authority or power of the decision-maker.
It may involve acting without jurisdiction, or exceeding jurisdiction.
Includes errors of law that go to the heart of the tribunal's power.
It is distinguished from non-jurisdictional errors, which courts may be more reluctant to intervene in.
II. Importance in Administrative Law
Ensures administrative bodies do not usurp powers reserved for courts or other entities.
Protects the rule of law by enforcing limits on administrative discretion.
Grounds for quashing or setting aside unlawful administrative decisions.
III. Key Case Law Explaining Jurisdictional Error
1. Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL, UK)
Facts: The Foreign Compensation Commission made a decision which was alleged to be an error of law.
Holding: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public body in the course of its decision-making process is a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision a nullity.
Significance: This case is seminal, marking a broad interpretation of jurisdictional error, effectively collapsing the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
2. R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd, [1982] AC 617 (HL, UK)
Facts: A challenge to the refusal of a judicial review application on grounds of administrative discretion.
Holding: The House of Lords distinguished between jurisdictional errors and discretionary errors, emphasizing courts will intervene when the decision-maker exceeds or fails to exercise jurisdiction properly.
Significance: Clarified scope of judicial review, reinforcing that errors affecting the legality of jurisdiction engage review.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case), [1985] AC 374 (HL, UK)
Facts: The government banned trade union activities at GCHQ without consultation.
Holding: The court ruled that while some decisions are non-justiciable, the exercise of power is still subject to limits, and jurisdictional errors are reviewable.
Significance: Distinguishes political questions from legal jurisdictional errors, reinforcing reviewability.
4. Bangladesh Supreme Court – Abdul Haque v. Bangladesh, 12 BLD (AD) 246 (1989)
Facts: A challenge was made to an administrative order on grounds that the authority lacked jurisdiction.
Holding: The Appellate Division emphasized that a decision made without jurisdiction is void and can be struck down.
Significance: Reaffirms the fundamental principle in Bangladeshi law that jurisdictional errors nullify administrative acts.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74 (HL, UK)
Facts: The case dealt with procedural fairness and whether a procedural failure constituted jurisdictional error.
Holding: The House of Lords held that a breach of natural justice could amount to jurisdictional error, making the decision invalid.
Significance: Connects procedural fairness with jurisdictional authority.
6. Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. v. Bangladesh, 43 DLR (AD) 241 (1991)
Facts: The airline challenged an administrative order for being beyond the authority conferred.
Holding: The Appellate Division held that the administrative body had acted without jurisdiction and the order was therefore invalid.
Significance: One of the important Bangladeshi cases reinforcing jurisdictional limits on administrative authorities.
7. R v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore, [1957] 1 QB 574 (UK)
Facts: The Medical Appeal Tribunal was alleged to have made an error of law going to jurisdiction.
Holding: The court held that such an error was jurisdictional and subject to review.
Significance: Early recognition that errors of law affecting jurisdiction invalidate decisions.
IV. Summary of Principles on Jurisdictional Error
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Broad meaning of jurisdictional error | Any error of law made by decision-maker may invalidate decision | Anisminic |
| Acting without or exceeding jurisdiction | Authority must act within powers granted by statute | Abdul Haque |
| Procedural unfairness as jurisdictional error | Denial of natural justice can nullify decision | Khawaja |
| Justiciability limits | Some political decisions are non-justiciable but jurisdictional errors are reviewable | GCHQ Case |
| Judicial review as safeguard | Courts protect rule of law by ensuring jurisdiction is not exceeded | Biman Bangladesh |
V. Conclusion
Jurisdictional error is a key concept in administrative law ensuring administrative bodies do not act beyond their lawful powers. Judicial review is an essential mechanism for correcting such errors. The doctrine applies broadly to errors of law, factual misapplication where it affects jurisdiction, and breaches of natural justice.
The cases above reflect how courts carefully delineate jurisdiction and protect individuals and entities from ultra vires administrative acts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments