The role of common law in shaping administrative law principles
The Role of Common Law in Shaping Administrative Law Principles
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the actions and decisions of government agencies and public officials. It ensures that administrative decisions are made lawfully, fairly, and reasonably, protecting individuals from arbitrary or unlawful exercise of power.
Role of Common Law in Administrative Law
Before extensive statutory frameworks and judicial review legislation, common law principles formed the foundation of administrative law. Courts developed doctrines through case law to regulate administrative actions, focusing on:
Judicial review of administrative decisions
Procedural fairness (natural justice)
Reasonableness and rationality of decisions
Limits of administrative powers (ultra vires)
Legitimate expectation
Many of these common law principles continue to guide and influence modern administrative law statutes.
Key Common Law Principles and Case Laws
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission on the grounds of error of law.
Legal Issues: Whether an ouster clause (which purported to exclude judicial review) prevented the court from reviewing decisions for jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a decision-maker is a jurisdictional error, making the decision a nullity.
Significance: This case dramatically expanded judicial review by holding that ouster clauses cannot exclude review for jurisdictional errors. It is foundational in limiting administrative power.
2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without a hearing.
Legal Issues: Whether natural justice (procedural fairness) required that Ridge be given an opportunity to be heard before dismissal.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in administrative decisions affecting rights.
Significance: This case entrenched the common law duty of procedural fairness (natural justice), a cornerstone of administrative law.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374
Facts: Employees challenged a government decision banning trade union membership at GCHQ without consultation.
Legal Issues: Whether the government’s decision was subject to judicial review and whether legitimate expectations arose.
Outcome: The House of Lords confirmed that prerogative powers are reviewable and recognized the concept of legitimate expectation, extending procedural fairness protections.
Significance: This case developed the principle of legitimate expectation and confirmed that all executive powers are subject to the rule of law.
4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts: Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition on cinema opening hours.
Legal Issues: Whether the decision was so unreasonable that it should be overturned by courts.
Outcome: The court established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard, holding that courts will only intervene if a decision is so irrational that no reasonable authority would make it.
Significance: Established the standard of reasonableness in judicial review, still influential in assessing administrative decisions.
5. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Facts: The Minister refused to refer a complaint for investigation.
Legal Issues: Whether the Minister had discretion to refuse to exercise a statutory duty for improper purposes.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that discretionary powers must be exercised for the purposes intended by the statute.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that administrative powers must not be exercised for improper purposes (abuse of power).
6. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The Minister made a decision about a mining lease without considering relevant information.
Legal Issues: Whether failure to consider relevant considerations amounted to jurisdictional error.
Outcome: The High Court held that administrative decisions must take into account all relevant considerations.
Significance: Clarified the duty to consider relevant factors and avoid irrelevant factors in administrative decisions.
Summary: How Common Law Shapes Administrative Law
Jurisdictional error principle expanded access to judicial review and limited government power.
Procedural fairness (natural justice) principles ensure fair processes in administrative decisions.
Reasonableness standards limit arbitrary decisions.
Legitimate expectation doctrine protects procedural rights based on public representations.
Proper purpose and relevant considerations doctrines constrain discretionary powers.
Common law remains the bedrock of administrative law, continually interpreted and developed by courts to balance government authority and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments