To explain the aim of the administrative law principle
📘 What is the Aim of Administrative Law?
The core aim of administrative law is to ensure that government decision-making is lawful, fair, accountable, and transparent. It governs the relationship between individuals and public authorities, ensuring that public power is exercised within legal boundaries and according to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and justice.
🔍 Main Objectives of Administrative Law:
Legality – Government officials must act within the law.
Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice) – Individuals affected by decisions have a right to a fair process.
Reasonableness – Decisions must be rational and not arbitrary.
Accountability – Public authorities are accountable for their actions.
Reviewability – There must be legal mechanisms (judicial or merits review) to challenge decisions.
⚖️ Key Principles of Administrative Law – Explained Through Case Law
Let’s explore these principles through more than five landmark Australian cases, demonstrating the practical application of administrative law aims.
1. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Principle: Procedural fairness – the right to be heard.
Facts:
The Minister decided to deport Mr. Kioa (a Tongan national) based on information he wasn’t made aware of and thus had no chance to respond to.
Decision:
The High Court held that the rules of natural justice applied to administrative decisions affecting individuals' rights and interests. The decision was invalid because the applicant wasn't given an opportunity to respond to adverse material.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law ensures fair process by requiring decision-makers to notify individuals of adverse information and allow them to respond.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Principle: Reasonableness and lawful exercise of discretion.
Facts:
A visa applicant’s application was refused because the Migration Review Tribunal thought the request for adjournment was unreasonable, without considering the context properly.
Decision:
The High Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable — it lacked justification and was disproportionate to the circumstances.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law ensures that decisions are not arbitrary or disproportionate, and must be supported by logical reasoning.
3. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Principle: Legality and the role of judicial review.
Facts:
The government sought to protect administrative decisions from legal review using a "privative clause" — attempting to limit the court's power to review migration decisions.
Decision:
The High Court held that even with privative clauses, judicial review cannot be excluded where there is a jurisdictional error (i.e., acting outside legal power).
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law ensures that all public power remains subject to the law and that individuals can challenge unlawful actions.
4. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Principle: Relevance – must consider relevant and ignore irrelevant matters.
Facts:
The Minister made a decision affecting a mining company’s interests without considering key submissions and evidence.
Decision:
The High Court held that a failure to consider relevant considerations amounted to a legal error. The Minister's discretion was not exercised properly.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law upholds rational and informed decision-making, ensuring decisions are based on relevant evidence and not arbitrary factors.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Principle: Fair exercise of discretion; limits of legitimate expectation.
Facts:
An immigration officer did not follow an earlier promise to allow a person to comment before making a visa decision.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that procedural fairness is not breached simply because an officer deviated from an expectation — unless the person suffers actual unfairness.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law demands fairness, but recognises practical limits — procedural fairness must be real, not theoretical.
6. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Principle: Natural justice – right to be heard during inquiries.
Facts:
Parents of a deceased boy were not informed or allowed to participate meaningfully in a coronial inquest.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that the rules of natural justice required they be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law protects the rights of individuals involved in inquiries or investigations by ensuring they are given a voice.
7. Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149
Principle: Bias and conflict of interest.
Facts:
A public official decided to award a mining tenement while holding shares in a company that had a financial interest in the outcome.
Decision:
The decision was invalidated due to apparent bias, undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the process.
Aim Demonstrated:
Administrative law safeguards against bias and promotes public trust in decision-makers.
🧾 Summary Table: Case Law and Aims of Administrative Law
| Case | Principle | Administrative Law Aim Demonstrated |
|---|---|---|
| Kioa v West | Procedural fairness | Right to a fair hearing |
| Li v MIMIA | Reasonableness | Prevent arbitrary decisions |
| Plaintiff S157 | Judicial review | Lawful exercise of public power |
| Peko-Wallsend | Relevant considerations | Rational and informed decisions |
| Ex parte Lam | Discretion and expectations | Fairness within discretion |
| Annetts v McCann | Natural justice | Right to be involved in decisions |
| Hot Holdings | Bias | Impartial and trustworthy decision-making |
🏁 Conclusion
The aim of administrative law is not simply to regulate technical compliance — it is to ensure that government decision-making is lawful, fair, reasonable, and transparent.
Through case law, courts have developed and enforced key principles that protect the rights of individuals against misuse or abuse of public power. These principles serve to:
Constrain arbitrary exercises of power
Ensure affected persons are treated justly
Support democratic accountability
Maintain public confidence in government decisions
Together, these principles embody the rule of law in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments