Skip to content
Class Notes

Week 5 Lecture Notes

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.

Preview 7 of 22 pages

See the first 7 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    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:

  2. Page 2
    Read page 2 as text

    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 7 P 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

  3. Page 3
    Read page 3 as text

    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.rai 1 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 Conf rot 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.

  4. Page 4
    Read page 4 as text

    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.

  5. Page 5
    Read page 5 as text

    • 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

  6. Page 6
    Read page 6 as text

    * 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).

  7. Page 7
    Read page 7 as text

    ■ 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

15 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Civil Law study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.