The writ of mandamus in Australian judicial review
The Writ of Mandamus in Australian Judicial Review
What is the Writ of Mandamus?
Mandamus is a traditional prerogative writ originating from common law. It is an order issued by a superior court compelling a public authority, official, or lower court to perform a public duty that they are legally obligated to perform but have failed or refused to carry out.
Purpose of Mandamus
To ensure lawful exercise of public duties.
To prevent omission or neglect of mandatory duties.
To provide a remedy where no other adequate legal remedy exists.
To enforce administrative accountability.
When is Mandamus Appropriate?
Mandamus will be granted only when:
A public official or authority owes a clear, legal duty to act.
The duty is mandatory, not discretionary.
The official has failed or refused to perform the duty.
There is no alternative adequate remedy.
The applicant has standing and the application is timely.
Key Case Laws on the Writ of Mandamus in Australia
1. R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Facts: Hardiman sought mandamus to compel the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to comply with procedural fairness obligations.
Legal Issues: Whether mandamus could compel a tribunal to perform its duty fairly and lawfully.
Outcome: The High Court confirmed mandamus is available to enforce the performance of public duties but will not command how the discretion is exercised.
Significance: Established mandamus as a key remedy for compelling lawful administrative action.
2. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts: The Minister failed to consider relevant information in decision-making.
Legal Issues: Whether mandamus could compel the Minister to consider relevant material.
Outcome: The High Court held that mandamus could enforce the duty to consider all relevant considerations but cannot dictate the decision’s content.
Significance: Clarified that mandamus enforces procedural duties but not substantive outcomes.
3. R v Smithers; Ex parte Benson (1912) 15 CLR 355
Facts: The applicant sought mandamus to compel a magistrate to enter a verdict.
Legal Issues: Whether mandamus could be used to compel judicial officers in their functions.
Outcome: The High Court held mandamus may compel performance of a judicial act if it is a mandatory duty, not a matter of discretion.
Significance: Reinforced mandamus can compel judicial officers but only in mandatory, not discretionary acts.
4. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts: Lam challenged the refusal to process his visa application.
Legal Issues: Whether mandamus was available to compel a statutory duty to consider an application.
Outcome: The High Court held that mandamus may issue to compel the performance of statutory duties but not to control the exercise of discretion.
Significance: Confirmed mandamus enforces performance of statutory duties, reinforcing limits on court control over discretion.
5. Wales v Commonwealth (1986) 161 CLR 1
Facts: Concerns the refusal of a public authority to perform a statutory duty.
Legal Issues: Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel compliance.
Outcome: The High Court upheld mandamus to enforce mandatory public duties but stressed procedural fairness.
Significance: Balanced mandamus with principles of fairness in administrative law.
6. Re Minister for Environment and Heritage; Ex parte Smith (1992) 176 CLR 515
Facts: Smith sought mandamus to compel environmental assessment.
Legal Issues: Whether failure to assess environmental impact could be compelled by mandamus.
Outcome: Mandamus was deemed appropriate to enforce mandatory statutory assessment duties.
Significance: Emphasized mandamus as a remedy in environmental administrative law to enforce compliance.
Summary: The Writ of Mandamus in Australian Law
Mandamus compels the performance of mandatory public duties and prevents unlawful omissions.
It is not used to control discretion or dictate decisions.
It serves as an important judicial review remedy where no other adequate remedy exists.
Australian courts have consistently held that mandamus enforces procedural and statutory duties but respects limits on judicial interference with discretionary powers.
The writ supports the rule of law by holding public authorities accountable for fulfilling their legal obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments