The Judiciary Act 1903 and judicial review jurisdiction
Judiciary Act 1903 and Judicial Review Jurisdiction
The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is a foundational statute in Australia that establishes the jurisdiction and functioning of the Federal Court system, including the High Court of Australia. One of its critical roles is to confer and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts, especially the judicial review jurisdiction over administrative decisions.
Key Provisions Relevant to Judicial Review:
Section 75(v): Original Jurisdiction of the High Court
The High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters “in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.” This provision effectively guarantees the courts' power to review administrative action.
Section 39B: Jurisdiction of Federal Courts
Confers jurisdiction on federal courts (like the Federal Court) to hear matters arising under Commonwealth law, including judicial review applications.
Section 44: Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari
This section explicitly provides for the issuance of these prerogative writs (historically the remedies to control administrative actions).
Together, these sections form the statutory foundation for judicial review of Commonwealth administrative decisions and actions.
Importance of the Judiciary Act in Judicial Review:
Guarantees Access to Courts: By vesting jurisdiction in the High Court and Federal Court, it ensures individuals can seek legal remedies against unlawful administrative actions.
Supports Rule of Law: Confers power to supervise the legality of government and administrative decisions.
Facilitates Review of Administrative Discretion: The Act underpins the availability of remedies like certiorari (quashing decisions), mandamus (compelling performance of duties), prohibition (preventing unlawful actions), and injunctions.
Key Case Laws on Judiciary Act 1903 and Judicial Review Jurisdiction
1. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts: Challenged a clause in the Migration Act that attempted to exclude judicial review.
Issue: Whether the Parliament can restrict judicial review of administrative decisions.
Judgment: The High Court held that s 75(v) of the Constitution (as given effect through Judiciary Act 1903) guarantees jurisdiction to review administrative decisions and that ouster clauses limiting review are invalid.
Significance: Affirmed the Judiciary Act’s role in preserving constitutional judicial review jurisdiction.
2. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Facts: The Tribunal’s decision was challenged on grounds of jurisdictional error.
Issue: Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act to review the Tribunal’s decision.
Judgment: The High Court confirmed the Judiciary Act empowers courts to review decisions for jurisdictional error and to issue prerogative writs.
Significance: Demonstrated the Judiciary Act’s function in enabling judicial review of administrative tribunal decisions.
3. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Facts: Concerns about the scope of jurisdictional error in administrative decisions.
Issue: Whether judicial review under the Judiciary Act extends to jurisdictional errors.
Judgment: The High Court affirmed that jurisdictional errors invalidate decisions, and courts have jurisdiction to review and set aside such decisions under the Judiciary Act.
Significance: Clarified the Judiciary Act’s role in empowering courts to correct jurisdictional errors in administrative law.
4. Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 243 CLR 319
Facts: Asylum seekers challenged migration decisions.
Issue: Whether courts had jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Migration Act.
Judgment: The High Court confirmed that under the Judiciary Act, courts have jurisdiction to review such decisions for legality, including errors of law and jurisdictional error.
Significance: Reinforced that the Judiciary Act provides jurisdiction for judicial review of government decisions affecting fundamental rights.
5. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts: The Refugee Review Tribunal's decision was challenged.
Issue: Whether the Federal Court could review the Tribunal's decision for jurisdictional error.
Judgment: The High Court ruled the Federal Court has jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act to review the Tribunal's decisions for errors of law and jurisdictional errors.
Significance: Showed the Judiciary Act’s application to administrative tribunals and their decisions.
Summary
The Judiciary Act 1903 is crucial for conferring judicial review jurisdiction on Australian federal courts.
Section 75(v) of the Constitution, given effect by the Judiciary Act, guarantees access to courts for review of administrative action.
The Act empowers courts to issue traditional prerogative writs as remedies.
Courts use this jurisdiction to supervise legality, prevent abuse of power, and ensure public authorities act within their legal bounds.
Key High Court decisions have consistently upheld and clarified this jurisdiction, reinforcing the rule of law and accountability in administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments