Limits of judicial review in Victoria
Limits of Judicial Review in Victoria
Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise administrative actions to ensure legality, fairness, and compliance with the law. However, judicial review is not unlimited — courts recognize certain boundaries that limit their intervention, especially in Victoria and Australian administrative law generally. These limits protect the separation of powers, respect administrative expertise, and prevent judicial overreach.
Key limits include:
Justiciability
Courts only review matters that are legally justiciable — i.e., appropriate for judicial determination. Political questions or policy decisions may be excluded.
Ouster Clauses
Statutes sometimes attempt to exclude or limit judicial review via “ouster clauses,” though courts narrowly interpret these.
Discretionary Nature of Remedies
Even if an error is found, courts may refuse remedies like injunctions or declarations if not appropriate.
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies
Courts expect parties to exhaust statutory or administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.
Non-Interference with Merits
Courts generally do not substitute their own judgment on the merits; they focus on legality, procedure, and jurisdiction.
Case Law Illustrating Limits of Judicial Review in Victoria/Australia
1. Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Facts:
The case concerned the scope of judicial review and whether courts should review the merits of administrative decisions.
Held:
The High Court emphasized that judicial review focuses on errors of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural unfairness — not on merits or policy.
Limit Highlighted:
Non-interference with merits — courts will not review administrative decisions just because they disagree with them on merit.
2. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
The plaintiff challenged an ouster clause in the Migration Act that sought to exclude judicial review.
Held:
The High Court held that ouster clauses cannot exclude judicial review for jurisdictional errors. Such clauses are interpreted strictly and subject to constitutional limits.
Limit Highlighted:
Ouster clauses have limited effect — judicial review is preserved against jurisdictional error despite statutory attempts to exclude it.
3. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Facts:
A question arose on the extent of deference courts owe to administrative decisions.
Held:
The High Court clarified that courts should show appropriate deference but must ensure decisions comply with law.
Limit Highlighted:
Deference to administrative expertise limits judicial intervention except where legal error exists.
4. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
Facts:
This case dealt with the separation of judicial and non-judicial powers.
Held:
The High Court established that courts cannot perform non-judicial functions incompatible with judicial power.
Limit Highlighted:
Justiciability and separation of powers limit the scope of judicial review to matters appropriate for courts.
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts:
The case focused on procedural fairness and the limits on review of decision-making processes.
Held:
The High Court held that while procedural fairness is essential, the level of procedural fairness may vary depending on context.
Limit Highlighted:
Variable standards of procedural fairness limit judicial review according to circumstances.
Summary Table
| Case | Limit of Judicial Review Illustrated | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Craig v South Australia (1995) | Non-interference with merits | Review focuses on legal errors, not merits |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) | Ouster clauses | Statutory attempts to exclude review narrowly construed |
| Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) | Deference to administrative decisions | Courts defer to expertise unless law is breached |
| R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers (1956) | Separation of powers, Justiciability | Courts only decide judicial matters |
| Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) | Procedural fairness varies | Procedural fairness depends on context |
Conclusion
In Victoria, judicial review is a powerful tool but comes with clear limits designed to respect administrative discretion, legislative intent, and constitutional boundaries. Courts intervene primarily to correct legal errors, uphold fairness, and ensure lawful exercise of power, but do not act as courts of appeal on merits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments