Remedies in judicial review under Australian law
Remedies in Judicial Review under Australian Law
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise the legality of decisions and actions made by administrative bodies or public officials. It ensures that executive power is exercised within legal limits and according to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and procedural propriety.
Types of Remedies in Judicial Review
The Australian system of judicial review traditionally grants several prerogative writs and other remedies to control and correct unlawful administrative actions. The main remedies include:
Certiorari
Quashes (invalidates) a decision or proceeding that was made unlawfully or beyond jurisdiction.
Mandamus
Commands a public authority to perform a duty it is legally obligated to perform.
Prohibition
Prevents a tribunal or authority from acting beyond its jurisdiction or exceeding its powers.
Habeas Corpus
Orders the release of a person unlawfully detained.
Declaration
A formal statement by the court about the rights or legal position of parties, often clarifying whether a decision was lawful.
Injunction
An order preventing a public authority from acting unlawfully or compelling it to act.
Case Laws Illustrating Remedies in Judicial Review
1. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
Plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration under the Migration Act, which contained a privative clause attempting to exclude judicial review.
Issue:
Whether the privative clause barred the court’s power to grant remedies in judicial review.
Held:
The High Court held that the privative clause could not prevent judicial review where the decision-maker made a jurisdictional error.
Remedy:
The court granted certiorari, quashing the unlawful decision.
Significance:
Affirmed the availability of judicial review remedies despite statutory attempts to oust them.
2. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Facts:
An immigration decision was challenged for errors of law and procedural fairness.
Issue:
Whether the court could grant remedies for breaches of administrative law principles.
Held:
The Court reiterated that certiorari and mandamus are available to correct errors of jurisdiction or failure to perform statutory duties.
Remedies:
Certiorari quashing the invalid decision and mandamus to compel lawful exercise of power.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of remedies and the requirement for lawful administrative conduct.
3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK case, influential in Australia)
Facts:
A local authority’s decision was challenged as unreasonable.
Issue:
Whether courts can grant remedies on grounds of unreasonableness.
Held:
Established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test.
Remedies:
Certiorari was used to quash unreasonable decisions.
Significance:
Groundbreaking case setting standards for judicial intervention in administrative decisions.
4. R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Facts:
Two men challenged a decision by the Queensland Industrial Court.
Issue:
Whether the court could issue prohibition to prevent a tribunal acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Held:
Prohibition was granted to prevent unlawful tribunal action.
Significance:
Illustrates prohibition as a preventive remedy to restrain unlawful administrative action.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts:
An asylum seeker challenged a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
Issue:
Whether a declaration could be issued regarding the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s decision.
Held:
The High Court held that declarations are appropriate to clarify legal positions in administrative law.
Remedy:
The court issued a declaration on the correct interpretation of the law.
Significance:
Shows the use of declarations as remedies in judicial review to guide future conduct.
6. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister refused a mining lease application; the decision was challenged for failing to consider relevant factors.
Issue:
Whether the court could grant certiorari to quash a decision made unlawfully.
Held:
Certiorari was appropriate to quash the decision.
Significance:
Demonstrates the role of judicial review remedies in enforcing procedural fairness and proper exercise of discretion.
Summary Table
| Case | Remedy Used | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth | Certiorari | Judicial review despite privative clause | Courts preserve power to review jurisdictional errors |
| Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj | Certiorari, Mandamus | Remedy for error of law and duty breach | Corrects unlawful administrative decisions |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Certiorari | Wednesbury unreasonableness | Limits unreasonable administrative action |
| R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton | Prohibition | Prevents tribunal acting beyond jurisdiction | Prevents unlawful exercise of power |
| Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala | Declaration | Clarifies legal position | Judicial guidance on administrative law |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend | Certiorari | Enforces procedural fairness | Ensures lawful exercise of administrative discretion |
Conclusion
Judicial review remedies in Australia ensure that administrative decisions are lawful, fair, and within jurisdiction. Courts can quash invalid decisions (certiorari), compel performance of duties (mandamus), prevent unlawful actions (prohibition), release unlawful detention (habeas corpus), clarify rights (declaration), and restrain or compel actions (injunction). These remedies uphold the rule of law and protect individuals against administrative overreach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments