Jurisdictional error in High Court decisions
Jurisdictional Error
What is Jurisdictional Error?
A jurisdictional error happens when a decision-maker acts outside the scope of the authority granted by law.
It involves a fundamental legal error affecting the validity of the decision.
If a jurisdictional error occurs, the decision is typically invalid or void and can be quashed on judicial review.
Types of Jurisdictional Error
Acting without jurisdiction: Decision-maker deals with a matter they have no authority over.
Exceeding jurisdiction: Decision-maker goes beyond the powers granted.
Failing to exercise jurisdiction: Refusing or neglecting to make a decision when required.
Improper exercise of jurisdiction: Exercising power for an unauthorized purpose or ignoring relevant considerations.
Error of law on the face of the record: Making a legal error that shows the decision was not within jurisdiction.
Importance in High Court Decisions
High Courts, when exercising supervisory jurisdiction, identify jurisdictional errors to ensure lower courts or tribunals act within their lawful limits.
Jurisdictional errors undermine the legality and validity of administrative or judicial decisions.
Case Law Illustrations of Jurisdictional Error
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK House of Lords)
Facts: The Foreign Compensation Commission made an error in interpreting the law.
Issue: Whether the error was a jurisdictional error rendering the decision invalid despite a statutory ouster clause.
Ruling: The House of Lords held that any error of law by a decision-maker in interpreting its powers is a jurisdictional error and renders the decision null and void.
Significance: Established that any error of law that affects the decision-maker’s jurisdiction is a jurisdictional error, which cannot be protected by an ouster clause.
Outcome: The decision was quashed.
2. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (High Court of Australia)
Facts: The appellant challenged a tribunal decision for jurisdictional error.
Issue: Defined the meaning and scope of jurisdictional error.
Ruling: The High Court clarified jurisdictional error as an error affecting the power or authority of a decision-maker to decide the matter.
Significance: Distinguished jurisdictional errors from non-jurisdictional errors (errors within jurisdiction).
Outcome: Provided a comprehensive framework for identifying jurisdictional errors in Australia.
3. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 (Australia High Court)
Facts: Involved an immigration decision alleged to involve jurisdictional error.
Issue: Clarified the types of errors that amount to jurisdictional error in administrative decisions.
Ruling: The Court affirmed that failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements or ignoring relevant considerations could amount to jurisdictional error.
Significance: Confirmed that errors concerning the process as well as substantive law can constitute jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The decision was subject to judicial review on these grounds.
4. Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2006] UKPC 57
Facts: Concerned the invalidity of a legislative act due to procedural irregularities.
Issue: Whether failure to follow prescribed procedures constituted jurisdictional error.
Ruling: The Privy Council held that non-compliance with mandatory constitutional procedures resulted in jurisdictional error and invalidity.
Significance: Established that jurisdictional error includes failure to comply with fundamental procedural requirements.
Outcome: The act was declared invalid.
5. R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21
Facts: The case involved the refusal of disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Issue: Whether the Attorney General’s exercise of veto was lawful or an error of jurisdiction.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had made a jurisdictional error by misapplying the power, acting outside legal limits.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that misapplication or misuse of power leads to jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The decision was quashed.
Summary of Jurisdictional Error Principles from Case Law
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anisminic Ltd v FCC (1969) | UK | Any error of law affecting jurisdiction is jurisdictional error | Decision invalid despite ouster clause |
| Craig v South Australia (1995) | Australia | Jurisdictional error affects the decision-maker’s power | Clarified scope of jurisdictional error |
| Minister for Immigration v Yusuf (2001) | Australia | Procedural and substantive errors can be jurisdictional | Decision reviewable |
| Sharma v Brown-Antoine (2006) | Caribbean (PC) | Failure to comply with constitutional procedures is jurisdictional error | Act invalid |
| R (Evans) v Attorney General (2015) | UK | Misuse/misapplication of power is jurisdictional error | Decision quashed |
Conclusion
Jurisdictional error invalidates decisions because they are made without proper legal authority.
It covers a broad range of errors including legal misinterpretations, procedural failures, and acting beyond power.
Courts, including High Courts, vigilantly scrutinize decisions for jurisdictional errors to protect the rule of law.
The cited cases provide landmark authority on the concept, scope, and consequences of jurisdictional error.
RELATED Blog
0 comments