The influence of British common law on Australian administrative law
The Influence of British Common Law on Australian Administrative Law
Australia’s legal system is rooted in the British common law tradition. Since Australian courts inherited the British legal framework, the principles of administrative law—which governs the actions of government bodies and officials—were initially shaped by British precedents.
British common law contributed foundational concepts such as:
Judicial review of administrative decisions
The grounds for review: illegality, irrationality (unreasonableness), procedural fairness, and natural justice
The Wednesbury unreasonableness test
The principle of legitimate expectation
The duty to give reasons in administrative decisions
Over time, Australian courts adapted these principles to the local context, creating a distinct body of administrative law, while still heavily influenced by British case law.
Key British Cases Influencing Australian Administrative Law
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Principle: Established the test for reasonableness in judicial review.
Facts: A local authority imposed conditions on cinema opening hours, which were challenged as unreasonable.
Holding: The court ruled that a decision is only unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Influence on Australia: The Wednesbury unreasonableness test became the benchmark for Australian courts assessing administrative decisions’ rationality. It remains foundational in Australia’s judicial review for irrationality.
2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (UK)
Principle: Reinforced the right to procedural fairness (natural justice) before administrative decisions.
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without a fair hearing.
Holding: The House of Lords held that procedural fairness must be observed in administrative decisions affecting rights.
Influence on Australia: Australian courts adopted this principle as central to administrative law, requiring decision-makers to provide a fair hearing and unbiased decision process (procedural fairness). Cases like Kioa v West reflect this legacy.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case) (UK)
Principle: Expanded judicial review grounds to include legitimate expectation and clarified procedural fairness.
Facts: Government banned union membership at GCHQ without consultation, which was challenged.
Holding: The court recognized legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review and emphasized fairness.
Influence on Australia: Australian courts incorporated the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as seen in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995).
4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Principle: Courts have the power to review decisions even when a statute contains an ouster clause.
Facts: The Foreign Compensation Commission made an error of law which it claimed immunity from review under a statutory ouster clause.
Holding: The House of Lords held that errors of law invalidate decisions, so ouster clauses do not shield unlawful decisions.
Influence on Australia: This principle was pivotal in Australian administrative law to ensure executive decisions remain subject to judicial review despite attempts to limit it. Cases like Craig v South Australia build on this.
5. Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180 (UK)
Principle: Introduced the doctrine of illegality as a ground for review.
Facts: The Board demolished a building without proper authority.
Holding: The action was unlawful because the authority exceeded its power.
Influence on Australia: The doctrine of illegality became central in Australian judicial review, ensuring administrative bodies act within the law.
Australian Cases Reflecting British Influence
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550: Adopted procedural fairness principles from Ridge v Baldwin.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273: Recognized legitimate expectation based on international law, influenced by GCHQ case principles.
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163: Affirmed that courts can review errors of law despite ouster clauses, following Anisminic.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332: Applied Wednesbury reasonableness principles refined for Australian context.
Summary
Australian administrative law is deeply rooted in British common law.
Foundational doctrines like Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, jurisdictional error, and illegality originated in the UK and were adopted by Australian courts.
While Australia has developed its own nuances, British case law remains a critical influence.
This shared heritage ensures principles of fairness, legality, and rationality in government decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments