Week 8 Lecture Notes

Covers narrow ultra vires in administrative law—when decision-makers act beyond their legal powers. Topics include statutory interpretation, procedural breaches, jurisdictional facts, and leading cases like Project Blue Sky and Kioa v West.

Daniel Miller
Contributor
4.8
60
10 months ago
Preview (4 of 12 Pages)
100%
Log in to unlock

Page 1

Week 8 Lecture Notes - Page 1 preview image

Loading page ...

Lecture NotesIntroduction to Narrow Ultra Vires'Lthra v -as is when a d e d » o n - m a k a r T i t a sa aecsicn -dietibeyond h a w k e yare al ewedtc exercise their power.DefinitionsJurisdictionpower to docideU ltrs Viresbeyond power*The exercise of executive power may involve:>anadministrative decision,>an administrates action, or>a tegislative acton (delegated legislaton’)> can only be renewed through common lawThere s no a rc jn-sta nces ware a c sc sicn-rr akar has uftirr ate p o w e r .The scope as to where e decision- T a k e r ' s power beg ns and ends will always be equestion ofa..Ali administrative powers arelimited.*The courts use the ultra vires grounds of review toidentity and enforce limits an power.-Question of lawPower

Page 2

Week 8 Lecture Notes - Page 2 preview image

Loading page ...

*An adminisiralive decision or action ttial is beyond apower's limit is ...> ultra vires, and ...> an error of law, and ...>trivahd.*Traditionary, ultra vires has been the principal waythatthecommonlawhaswoitedtokeeptheexecutive accountable.*Theproceduresthat mustbefollowed before thepower can be exercised.*Thesubject matterover which power is granted.*The actionsthatpoweris granted to perform.Ultra Vires and Statirtory InterpretationClassic Prosurnptionsnl Statutory InterpretationCourts ShiuJd flrve ar. nilfip’irtllkjr Ifial gives tiled M |l:e u'dedynypurpose of the staluto over nirfafprelataii that wflctd tend to deical1hat purpose Thepurposiveapproach isprefenw! and odhockwappnjaci k> statutory interpxlatKzi: Acte !'ir&7XEiaHorTfid?90f (Cth)s15AA (+s15AE]; ActsInIsrpefaliorr Act f9K (CH) sUA [+ sUB;Remedystatutes nr siaintes designed in conferabeneft. sfrruXdbeiiteiy construedlecslalknshould nolbeinte'p'tfad asderigra'irglongStandngcornrrwn law rights and freedoms wifoutbear words (eg.'Jraedornof contract, property rgils, piracy and trespass;letrda&cri shoiAd n« Irrpose retwpectiv* obligation* unless mereare clear wordsExpresspowersendixta addiboral mplied powers>lesJaben dcesn t regtriti access ro Cajrts wthcul veryc'.earwords(and even LnenCourts read sucft reslncticns very nsrroty)

Page 3

Week 8 Lecture Notes - Page 3 preview image

Loading page ...

>PurposiveInterpreiHtionWaters if pL'Wrc Transport CCVT1711SLIL11? (1991} 103 ALR 513>DidtheVide- anSqual Opportunities Board possess lhepowertoinvestigate acomplaint againstadecisiontoreplacetramconductorswithticketvenS'ngmachinesunderan express powerto investigate ‘discrimination onthe ground of disability?> T h eprinciple that reqtires that the partcular provisions ofthe Act must be need in the light dthe sWtutcry ob.eels isolparticular significance inthe casedlegislatewhichprotects orentreeshumanrights:(perMasonCJandCaudron J at 520).Common law principles and Individual rightsAwell-asteblislwdcommontawprmopteotstatutoryIrrterpfetatonisthepresumptionthatlegisaluresdonotintend10enowerctecteton-maimtoaverselyimpactindividualngfiliunlessthereisaclearintentiontothecontrary.*firopto v Western Ausfrafia (1990} 171 CLR1: Crown wasbourxJ 10 comply wthstatutory protections ofan Aboriginalhentaga site. The HC said>11is'...improbable thatthelegislature wouldoverthrowfundamentalprinoptes, infringeghtsor dec-art from thegeneral system of law. without expressing its intention wlhirresistible clearness.' (at 17-10)*Cocc v R (1994) 120 ALR 415: the H 01 Court herd tiat a genarailh-w d MacttinisWlw power to auifonse police to irstai a HsHnqjdevice to collect evdence did not rictode a power authoreing secralentry to the house m oner lo Instar fie deviceHowever, the prolection of common lew nghtican often conflictwllti Mhanetaig ItM objects of legislation with e remedial purpose.Arthwy Lagcai SialnoPtyLtfv Mawcs(197B) 74 ALR 77>The painttffS sough* Io overturn an cmer of the Carrrnlsaonerattowng the Northern Land Ccuncl to acctss crown tend subjecito a land rights claim The pianirffs pastoral ease surrounded thetendsubject to Hie dam.> FC held the order was ultra vires (2 1) and split war whether thelegislatorneededtospecifyapower‘wennesisfiNerteamess'.> As t apo«cr had nd t«r.ini nJ d enrty in th* erjsn-nfd ornr r ofr*i Cciii'i'ifiHorrH' was lAS 6'ul.

Page 4

Week 8 Lecture Notes - Page 4 preview image

Loading page ...

Judicial deference to executive power*VanoL® factors influence the degras of de’eraocedat (hecourtsgrant10an agency:> Statutory termse g. w th unstructured powers' the courtsare tew likely to scrutinise the agency ico dosely becausethe subject matier may be tco controversial or 'po ifcal>Thenature ofthe agency's role: Courts wll defer Io anagency's technical expertise, particularly in relation to (non-jjritocliwal) fact’li-iding (geelectureM j>Th# effect onthe applicant'sinterests, a court is likely iomore closely scretinisfranadministraiM deo&nn which has aserious and erect affect on the legrtmate inwests of theappfcantProcedural Ultra ViresThe most basic form of ultra vires is proceduralultra vires,Afailure to oorripiy with statutory procedures willconstitute grounds for judicial review under both:> A D J R Ass 5(1}(b) & 6(1)(b)> J R A s s 20(2)(b) &21{2)(b)Pp,zzaa .ra: uhra vires requires us to »en:ify"thesto'ps'tha: have to be fa;zv.sa by adeclaton-nnaltor :n craarfora power to existThe decision- v aker f as to follow :b ose stops in order to valirz y axcrcis: :hat power.If :hszez sion-mansrzoss-' : faz w t h a stops praparty :hs n :hsy -..or t os acting with "ftopowsr thay-s baan granite ano their decision will ba ultra . ' i t s .
Preview Mode

This document has 12 pages. Sign in to access the full document!