Week 5 Lecture Notes

Name: Week 5 Lecture Notes
Brand: Academic Documents Platform
Price: 1 USD
Availability: InStock
Author: Daniel Miller

A legal reference hub for judicial review principles in Australia, covering statutory and common law review, key cases, remedies, and limitations like privative clauses, with comparative insights on administrative decision-making.

Daniel Miller

Contributor

4.3

3 months ago

Preview (7 of 22)

L e c t u r e N o t e s
Origin: of Judicial Review
■ J u d i c i a l review has its o r i g i n s in c o m m o n law, in particular the rules of the Kings Bench
Courts in L o n d o n .
■ J u d i c i a l review is only concerned with the egal ity of d e c i s i o n m a k i n g .
» The three central writs that d e v e l o p e d in the Kings Bench — Preroqairve iVr.ts (due to their
association with delivering the authority of the Monarch and disciplining lower-level
decision-making - d e v e l o p e d g r a d u a l l y over the 13th to the 18th century:
Certiorari — to be fully i n f o r m e d ; to ca I Up the record of a lower- evel d e c i s i o n - m a k e r
for r e v i e w ; to quash a d e c i s i o n that has a l r e a d y been m a d e
3 roni b i t i o n - al o w s f o ' high evel courts to p r o h i b i t o- p r e v e n t a o ecis i o n - m a t e ' from
p r o c e e d i n g 'with a c o u r s e of action
Me ndamUs - a I o ws f o r e highe r co urt to co mpe I a d ecisi o r - maker to p erform certa in
a c t i o n s
* The law of E q u i t y also d e v e l o p e d some r e m e d i e s when the Prerogative Writs c o L i d r o t be
accessed:
Declaration
I n j u n c t i o n
■ The Prerogative Writs end E q u i t y r e m e d i e s are discussed t o g e t h e r as c o m m o n law review.
Development of Judicial Review
* P rob em s with the prer og at' ve writs and e q uitabl e rem edies:
The prerogative writs in p a r t i c u l a r were very t e c h n i c a l and there were issues with
attempting to apply c o n c e p t s that were d e v e l o p e d c e n t u r i e s earlier to the m o d e r n
administrative states.
A p p l i c a n t s had to go t h r o u g h a two-step h e a r i n g p r o c e s s which was very e x p e n s i v e
and t i m e - c o r & U m i n g .
There is a different in the evel of scope between the d i f f e r e n t p r e r o g a t i v e 'writs and
d' Terent availability b e t w e e n the writs and e q u i t y which made t h i n g s very c o n f u s i n g
for p e o p l e .
* Reform process — 1960s- 1970s- 1980s:

1960s - a n u m b e r of House of Lords d e c i s i o n s r e m o v e d many of the technicalities in
the UK about the way j u d i c i a l review o p e r a t e d
In Australia there was the introduction of statutory revie w - Cth ADJRA 1 97 7P JRA Qld
1991
ADJRA does not exclude c o m m o n law review. This m e a n s that r e v i e w t h r o u g h the
statutory m e c h a n i s m s of the ADJRA and the JRA sit in p a r a l l e l to c o m m o n law r e v i e w .
* Therefore ADJRA ana c o m m o n law r e v i e w are p a r a l l e l ways to oring j u d i c i a l review
applications to court.
* Since the ADJRA came into operation, there have been f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t s and reform
of the c o m m o n law by the HCA.
Judicial Review in 4 Steps
* Rega rd I ess of Usin q statutory or com mon aw rev ew, j u d i c i a l revi ew i nvohras foU r step s:
Access to Judicial Review
• Are the d e c i s i o n and decision- m a k i n g b o d y reviewable?
■ Diffie re nt tests b etween ADJRA/JRA a nd com mon I a w review.
Access to Judicial Review ( S t a n d i n g )
• Substa nt ive testing (same for ADJ RA/J RA a nd com mon I aw).
G r o u n d s of Review
• Same tests for ADJRA/JRA and c o m m o n lew.
R e m e d i e s
• Same tests for ADJRA/JRA and c o m m o n law.
Statutory Review
* Cth - Fede re Court or F e d e r a l Circuit Court (ADJRA &8).
■ Q l d - S u p r e m e Court (JRA s1 9).
* The JRA is base d on the ADJ RA with so me si g nifi cant d iffe re n ces.
» SI 6 JRA (with Schedule 3) i m p l i e s that Cth e g i s l a t i o n and case aw s h o u l d be Used in
interpreting similar sections of JRA.
* Time l i m i t s for statutory review:
28 days after reasons given (ADJRA si 1(3)f JRA s26(2}).
ADJRA/JRA a low leave of court to b r i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o u t s i d e of 28 days.
* Leave of c o u r t d e p e n d s on:
Subject matter and statutory context
Effects of a e ay in b r i n g i n g a p p l i c a t i o n

The a p p l i c a n t has provided an 'acceptable e x p l a n a t i o n of the d e l a y ' and it is 'fair and
e q u i t a b e in the circumstances' to extent the time (Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd
v Minister for H o m e Affairs and Environment ( 1 9 8 3 ) 58 ALR 335)
* Access to j J d i ci aI review vi a statutory revi ew d epe nd s on sad slyin g fDJ r e le me nts (ADJ RA
3 s3(1) + 5 ; J R A ss4 + 20):
Express exclusions
D e c i s i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e character
U n d e r an e n a c t m e n t
Express Exclusions (Decisions that cannot be reviewed)
Com m o nwealth ADJ RA
» D e c i s i o n s of the G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a — s3(1
t s3(1 Rd) + S c h e d u l e 1:
D e c i s i o n s Under industrial r e l a t i o n s laws - Sch 1(a)
D e c i s i o n s Under ASi'O A c t - Sch 1(d)
Privative clause decisions Under Migration Act s474(2) - S c h 1(da)
Step along the way' d e c i s i o n s for d e t e r m i n i n g t a x a t i o n - Sch 1(e)
D e c i s i o n s Under the Defence Force Discipline Act - Sch 1(o)
D e c i s i o n s Under Commonwealth E'ecto.rai1 Act s25(1) or Part IIIA — Sch 1(q)
Q u e e n s l a n d JRA.
> Section 18 + Schedule 1 - eg:
- Parti, Casino Confrot Act 1982, ss28(3), 31(23) +
32(7)
• Part 1, District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s28
• Part 1, Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss554(3), 557(3),
765
• Part 2, Vkftness Protection Act 2000
• Part 2, Police Service Administration Act 1990, part 5A
> NOTE: JRA has no equivalent of ADJRA s3(1)(c). This
means decisions of Governor ARE reviewable under
JRA.

Privative Clauses
■ A privative or "oUsfer" clause is a legislative provision that seeks to protect p a r t i c u l a r
administrative actions f r o m j u d i c i a l r e v i e w .
* h is a direct statement in l e g i s l a t i o n d e d a r i n g that actions or decisions of an executive
agency are N O T neviewab e.
* The courts have adopted the p r i n c i p e that a right of r e c o u r s e to the courts to ensure the
egality of administrative action is an i m p o r t a n t c o m m o n law p r i n c i p l e , which can only be
d i s p l a c e d with d e a r words.
» As a c o n s e q u e n c e , privative da Uses are read very strictly.
An example: Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
$574 Awards of Commission are final
An award,.,,
(a) is final and conclusive; and
(b) must not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed,
quashed or called in question in any court; and
(c) is not subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction
in any court on any account
* Why do Iegi slatUres e nact p rivative claU ses?
They provide certainty for decision-makers.
Al low for timely de ci sion-m a king by t h o s e with s p eci aI isrt expe rti se.
In areas w h e r e there are well-resoUrcec interests, such clauses p r e v e n t such parties
g e t t i n g an Unfair a d v a n t a g e by c o n t i n u o u s l y reviewing U n f a v o u r a b l e d e c i s i o n s ,
* Why d o coU rts dislike privative cl a Uses?
Principles associated 'with the rule of law suggest that j u d i c i a l review is essential to
ensure th at th e govern me nt is acti ng lawfu 11y .
S ep a rati o n of p owe rs arg U me nt about the i m p o rtance of a n i nd epe r d ent j Udi da ry in
k e e p i n g a check on executive d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
Decision (is there a reviewable decision?)
* It is p o s s i b l e to b r i n g ar a p p l i c a t i o n for a r e v i e w of 'decisions" Under s 5 ADJRA and s20
JRA.

• h is possible to b r i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n for review of "conduct for the purpose of making a
decision' Under so ADJRA and s21 JRA.
■ h's p o s s i b l e to bring an a p p l i c a t i o n for review of the failure to make a d e c i s i o n Under s7
ADJRA and s22 JRA.
. Have to establish if the action by the cecis i o n - m a k e r is a reviewable d e c i s i o n .
>' Decision' defined by ADJRA s3(2); JRA s5:
In this Ad. a reference to the making of a decision indudes a
reference to.
(a} making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order,
award or determination;
(b) giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate,
direction, approval, consent or permission;
(c) issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence.
authority or other instrument
(d) imposing a condition or restriction:
(e) making a declaration, demand or requirement;
(I) retaining. or refusing to deliver up. an article; or
(g) doing or refusing Io do any other act or thing:
and a reference to a failure to make a decision shall be
construed accordingly.
■ The key i ssLes to cons: d e r a t e :
W h e n is there a decision c a p a b l e of b e i n g r e v i e w e d ?
What is the status of p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n s that ere steps along the way?
* Austrsi'i'a.n Broadcasting Tribune/ v B o n d ( 1 9 9 0 ) 1 70 CLR 321 :
The d e c i s i o n that B o n d was not fit and p r o p e r to hold a broadcasting ice nee was not
reviewable ( M a s o n CJ}.
• Austratian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (cont):
R e a s o n s :
> 'The answer is that a reviewable decision' is one for which
provision is made by or under a statute. Thai will generally, but
not always, entail a decision which s final or operative and
determinative ...
> A conclusion readied as a step along the way ... leading to an
ultimate decision would not ordinarily amount to a reviewable
decision, unless the statute provided fix the making of a finding
or ruling on that point so lhai the decision, through an
intermediate decision, might accurately be described as a
decision under an enactment.' per Mason CJ at 337

* Therefore Bond is an authority that;
D ecisi o n = i n Act ( r e e d to be able to identify provi sion in the Act th at p rovide s f or th e
d e c i s i o n that's b e i n g m a c e } .
N e e d section a u t h o r i s i n g the d e c i s i o n b e i n g reviewed
P r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n s not directly p r o v i d e d by in Act are NOT REVIEWABLE
P r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n s d i r e c t l y provided for in Act are reviewable.
N eed to show th e exa ct se ction .
* Another issue in B o n d was w h e t h e r the p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d to be
c o n d u c t for the p u r p o s e of m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n (s6 ADJRA):
C o n d u c t is essentially p r o c e d u r e and not s u b s t a n t i v e in character ( M a s o n CJ at 342)
Therefore, p r e l i m i n a r y decisions are not g e n e r a y considered to constitute ' c o n d u c t ' .
* E x a m p l e s of c o n d u c t !
Taking e v i d e n c e and h o l d i n g an inqU iry (s3(5))
D e c i s i o n s to refuse legal representation at a h e a r i n g
Administrative Character
* The phrase ‘ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power i m p o s e s a separation of p o w e r s exclusion on t h o s e
d e c i s i o n s which establish ru es, g u i d e l i n e s , or g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d s .
* Minister for indust/y a n d Commerce v Tooheys ( 1982 i 60 FLR 325:
Issue: h o w t o d i s t i n g u i s h between administrative and eqislative d e c i s i o n s ? Was the
refusal to make a by-law Under the Customs Act administrative or legislative?
O u t c o m e : A d m i n i s t r a t ve
R e a s o n : the distinction is essentially between the c r e a t i o n or formulation of new rules
of law h a v i n g g e n e r a l app i c a t i o n (i.e., legislative) and the application of t h o s e g e n e r a
aws to particular cases (i.e., a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - B o w e n CJ, N o r t h r o p and L o c k h a r t JJ at
665
« Centra J’ Q/d La n d Council v Attorn ey-Gen era/ (Cih) (2002) 188 ALR 200
Issue: where the Minister's d e c i s i o n s about w h e t h e r c e r t a i n activities were 'approved
exp/o ration acts' Under the Native Trt/e Act egislative or administrative?
O u t c o m e : Legislative
R e a s o n : W i l c o x J (at para 59) o u t l i n e d a n u m b e r of i n d i c a t o r s :
• Decisions d e t e r m i n i n g the c o n t e n t of rules of g e n e r a (usually prospective)
a p p l i c a t i o n (legislative) vs app i c a t i o n of rul es to p a r t i c u l a r cases (administrative).

Loading page 6...

■ Provi sion for m erits revi ew (ad mi ni strative)
• Pari iam anta ry control of th e d ecisi o n (l eg i slative)
• Req ui remerrt fo r pu blic con sUItation (leg sistive)
• B i n d i n g legal effect, parti cU arly in effect on statutory p r o v i s i o n s (legislative)
■ SAT F M Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [ 1 9 9 7 ] FCA 647 per S u n d b e r g J at 308
a n o t h e r e x a m p e of d e t e r m i n i n g administrative c h a r a c t e r .
Under Enactment
• Enactment is defined in ADJ RA and J RA:
ADRJA s-3(1) - enactment is an Act or i n s t r u m e n t (in d u d i n g rU es„ regU ations or by-
aws) m a d e Under an Act
JRA s3 - e n a c t m e n t is an Act or statutory i n s t r u m e n t
JRA s9 — ‘Under enactment ' refers to exercise of power Under a 'non-statuto/y
s c h e m e ' that is f u n d e d by an a p p r o p r i a t i o n by Parliament or from atax/levy.
• A key issue is how p r o x i m a t e to an e n a c t m e n t must the decision be?
• Australian National University v Burns (1 982) 64 FLR 166
Issue: Burns went on a p e r i o d of e x t e n d e d sick eave and University d e c i d e d to
t e r m i n a t e his e m p l o y m e n t . Was Burns' dismissal ' Under enactment ?
O u t c o m e : No it wasn't
Reasons:
• S e c t i o n 23 AWW Act p r o v i d e d for appointments, not dismiss a
• Clause 2 ( b X i i ) of e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r a c t referred to dismissal on m e d i c a l g r o u n d s
• W h i l e e n t e r i n g into the contract was u n d e r e n a c t m e n t (s23), dismissal was made
Under the contract of e m p l o y m e n t
■ Therefore, not a ecisi on was not Under the e n a c t m e n t and Burns co J Id not get
reasons Under s13
■ Griffith University v Tang (20 05) 2 1 3 ALR 724
Issue: There was an attempt by Tang to c h a l l e n g e the d e c i s i o n m a d e by the
University's Assessment Board e x c l u d i n g her from further e n r o l m e n t from her PhD
b e c a u s e of a f i n d i n g of a c a d e m i c misconduct. Was the d e c i s i o n by the Assessment
Board made Under the GU Act?
O u t c o m e : 4/1 m a j o r i t y said NO

Loading page 7...

4 more pages available. Scroll down to load them.

Preview Mode

100%

Study Now!

XY-Copilot AI

Unlimited Access

Secure Payment

Instant Access

24/7 Support

Document Chat

Document Details

Subject

Civil Law

Week 5 Lecture Notes

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Property Law Drill 1 Ownership, Property Types, an

Property Law Drill 4 Marital Property, Land Owners

Property Law Drill Ownership, Family Code, and Sta

Case Analysis of Soji and Parental Duty

Undue Influence in Contract Law Key Cases and Clas

Assessment 2 Job Hazard Analysis JHA

Assessment 1 Long Answer Question

Introduction to Law and Key Concepts and Principle

CIV 3702 Assignment 1

Final Project Milestone One Malpractice Case

Company

Explore

Study Tools