ADMIN LAW EXAM NOTES Table of Contents

JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Commonwealth ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2. State ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Justiciability .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1. High level decisions ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Prerogative Powers ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Quasi Public & Private Powers ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

3. Prerequisites .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 General Law: State ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 General Law: Commonwealth .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 ADJR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

GROUNDS: DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE ................................................................................................. 8

1. Application: The Threshold Question ................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Is there a clear statutory intention to exclude natural justice? ............................................................................................... 8 1.2. Does the decision directly affect a right, interest, or legitimate expectation? .................................................................. 8 1.3. Is it a PRELIMINARY DECISION? If so, does Natural Justice apply? ................................................................................... 10 1.4 Is there an appeal available? If so, is it sufficient to preclude natural justice? .............................................................. 10

2. Content: Generally .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 3. Content: The Hearing Rule .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.1. Adequate Prior Notice .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.2. Disclosure of evidence and issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 3.3. Opportunity to address - Conduct of Hearings ........................................................................................................................... 12

4. Content: The Bias Rule ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. The Test; Ebner ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2. Multi Member Tribunals ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 4.3. Waiver of Bias .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.4. Doctrine of Necessity ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15

5. Effect Of Failure To Observe Natural Justice ............................................................................................................................... 15

GROUNDS: PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY LAW .......................................................................................... 16

1. Old Common Law Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 2. Modern Common Law Approach; Project Blue Sky .................................................................................................................. 16

2.1. Statutory Language ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.2. Subject Matter and Objects .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3. Consequences of Invalidity .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.4. Other ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

3. ADJR s 5(1)(b): Procedures Required… In Connection With the Decision ..................................................................... 17

GROUNDS: DECISIONS NOT AUTHORISED BY ENACTMENT ..................................................................... 18 1. ADJR; s 5(1)(d) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2. Common Law ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

2.1. Acting Outside of the Boundaries of Power .................................................................................................................................... 18 3. The Rule Against Delegation .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1. Express Power to Delegate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Implied Power to Delegate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Agency – same principles ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19

2

GROUNDS: RELEVANT/IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 20 1. Initial Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 2. Bound to Consider .................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

2.1. Express Considerations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.2. Implied Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.3. Unconfined Discretions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.4. Duty to Inquire?........................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

3. Not Insignificant ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Weight to be Applied ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21 5. Policy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

GROUNDS: IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER ........................................................................................... 22 Improper Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

1. The Authorised Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. The Actual Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Bad Faith ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 What constitutes bad faith ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Exercise of Power at the Behest Of Another ...................................................................................................................................... 23 1. Relevancy of another’s opinion ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 2. Independent Consideration of Decision ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Inflexible Application Of Rule Or Policy ............................................................................................................................................... 24 1. Is the relevant policyconsistent with the statutory scheme? .................................................................................................. 24 2. Was the policy followed inflexibly? ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Unreasonableness ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 1. Discretionary powers: Was the Final Decision Unreasonable? .............................................................................................. 24

Uncertainty ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Abuse Of Power .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

GROUNDS: OTHER .................................................................................................................................. 25 Fraud .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 No Evidence ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

1. Common Law ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 2. ADJR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26

JURISDICTIONAL ERROR .......................................................................................................................... 28 1. What kind of errors will amount to jurisdictional error? ....................................................................................................... 28

1.1. Categories ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 2. Privative Clauses and Jurisdictional Error .................................................................................................................................. 29

2.1. Effect of a privative clause ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 2.2. If the error is JE, what happens? .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

Construction of privative clauses: .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 1. Error of Law on the Face of the Record ........................................................................................................................................ 30

1.1. What constitutes the record? ................................................................................................................................................................ 30 4. Jurisdictional Fact .................................................................................................................................................................................. 30

4.1. Is the Fact Jurisdictional? ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2. Where it is a jurisdictional fact, how is it reviewed?.................................................................................................................. 31

REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................................... 32 1. General Law ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

1.1. Certiorari & Prohibition .......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 1.2. Mandamus ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 1.3. Injunction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 1.4. Declaration ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34

2. ADJR .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.1. Failure to make a decision ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 2.2. Other remedies s 16 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

3. Discretion ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Remedy Specific .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35

3

ESSAY NOTES .......................................................................................................................................... 36 1. Jurisdictional Error & Privative Clauses ........................................................................................................................................ 36

Craig v SA (1995) 184 CLR 163 .................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Cth (2003) 211 CLR 476 .................................................................................................................................... 37 Kirk v IRC (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 ..................................................................................................................................................... 41

2. Development of No Evidence cf Common Law & UK .............................................................................................................. 44 3. Unreasonableness, irrationality and illogicality ....................................................................................................................... 44 4. The Private / Public Divide ................................................................................................................................................................ 45 5. The Rise and Fall of Legitimate Expectation .............................................................................................................................. 47 6. Forum Shopping ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 7. MERITS REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

4

JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES

1. Jurisdiction

1. Commonwealth If the enactment or decision maker is at Commonwealth level, there are 2 OPTIONS:

ADJR General Law JR

o 39B Judiciary Act o 75(v) Constitution

1.2. State At State level the only option is General Law Review in the Supreme Court

2. Justiciability

1. High level decisions At General Law, high level statutory powers have been reviewed

o Governors; R v Toohey, SA v O’Shea o But Cabinet decisions involve highly political considerations & are considered out of reach:

▪ Shepard and Bowen CJ; Peko (Wilcox J contra) Under ADJR decisions of the Governor General are excluded from review; s 3(1)

2. Prerogative Powers That the power is sourced in the prerogative does not prevent JR; CCSU, Peko Wallsend

In Peko-Wallsend, Wilcox J suggested an approach for determining whether reviewable: 1. Are interests affected in the requisite way (for JR to apply) 2. Is there any feature of the decision that makes JR inappropriate?

a. Too political; Steward v Ronalds (NSWCA) i. Employment terminated, was only there at the Governor’s Pleasure

b. International relations; Peko i. World heritage listing decision

c. National Security; CCSU i. CCSU were secret servicemen

3. Quasi Public & Private Powers Judicial review does not enforce public rights. To be amenable to review, a decision maker must be exercising public powers or duties. GENERAL LAW

Datafin suggests nature of the body is often but not always determinative. Look to: o Public character of power exercised o Statutory recognition o Non consensual submission to jurisdiction

The weight of this decision is unclear at general law, as the HCA did not deal with it in NEAT May argue that absence of statutory regulation may signify that Government intended for the industry

regulator to be beyond the control of public powers. But note that in Pf M61/2010 the HCA held decisions made by private contractors reviewable, due to their

inextricable link to the Minister’s decision making process ADJR

5

In NEAT the majority focused on the source of the power, and held that a private body is not empowered to make decisions under an enactment, but instead from its incorporation

o Private body, private power o Only statutory significance not source o Public law obligations incompatible with private interests o Note Kirby J contra: private character is consideration, but not determinative (Datafin-esq)

3. Prerequisites

3.1 General Law: State The Supreme Court of the State has inherent jurisdiction as a superior court of record

o Inheritance recognised in s 16(1)(a),(c) Supreme Court Act o Remedies under o 56 Rules of the Supreme Court

3.2 General Law: Commonwealth High Court

A matter in which a [constitutional writ or equitable remedy] is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth; s 75(v) Commonwealth Constitution

o Also via s 71(iii) (any matter to which the Cth is a power) o Also via s 73 (appellate jurisdiction) o Extra Remedies: mandamus, prohibition, ouster of office; s 33 Judiciary Act

Federal Court

A matter in which a [constitutional writ or equitable remedy] is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth; s 39B(1) Judiciary Act

To enliven federal general law jurisdiction there must be a “Matter”; Re McBain

This involves a controversy about some immediate right, duty or liability to be established by determination of the Court

o Therefore must be more than a theoretical interest in agitating a question

3.3 ADJR Jurisdiction under ADJR requires a decision (s 5), conduct (s 6) or a failure (s 7) related to a decision to which the Act applies; s 3(1) ADJR

“Decision” A decision is NOT limited to final decisions; Bond v ABT

o Must be authorised or required under the Act (cf a mere step in the course of reasoning) ▪ But a step of reasoning is reviewable if the Act provides for it ▪ “An essential preliminary”

o Must be final OR operative and determinative ▪ At least in a practical sense of the issue of fact falling for consideration

o Must resolve a substantive issue ▪ If merely procedural, it is conduct (and must be brought before the decision) ▪ Conduct, s6 cannot be reviewed independently once decision is made; Ozmanian

But it can be reviewed as part of the decision o Licensees fit and proper was intermediate, but matter of substance, provided for in the Act as an

essential preliminary. The finding of Bond personally was not. o Fact finding is not reviewable, unless required by the Act

▪ But may be if the ultimate decision is reviewable, as an element of the determination Application of Bond:

Reports and recommendations; Ross v Costigan o Where power to make is provided for in the Act o Where report/recommendation is essential preliminary to final decision o Where final decision is to be made after report o Cf Kelson v Forward: Workplace harassment report

6

▪ Authorised by enactment ▪ Immediate consequence (even if subsequent decisions can be based on it) ▪ Reputation harmed, report can stand alone as separate and discrete decision

o Cf Cth v HREOC: Findings as to discrimination ▪ Though not final or operative, settled matters of substance that were essential

preliminaries provided for in the Act Criminal investigations; Salerno

o Decision to raid a home is final and operative (reviewable); o Antecedent investigation steps only provided for generally in the Act, incidental in nature (not

reviewable); Referral processes; Edlesten

o ADJR not intended to be a vehicle for review at every stage; ▪ Decisions of Dr to refer to committee did not affect substantive rights, and lacked any quality

of finality and substance o Decision of Committee to refer to Minister not reviewable, as NOT condition precedent

▪ Only duty of Minister was to consider referrals Refusals after recommendations; Right to Life v DHS

o Despite no duty to make DM aware, the matters were brought to his attention o Decision would be reviewable, thus refusal also (s 3(2))

“Administrative Character” Generally satisfied when the decision is not of a legislative or judicial character; Hamblin v Duffy

By-laws may be legislative or administrative; MIC v Tooheys Ltd o Look to context and subject matter o If applying to a specific person or item, it is administrative o If of general application, it is legislative o See also Aerolineas Argentinas

▪ Setting fees by references to persons and usage o Cf Qld Med Lab v Blewett

▪ Altering table of fees of general application held legislative Central QLD LCAC

o Legislature determines content of law, executive applies it to specific cases o Parliamentary control, not definitive = legislative o Public consultation = legislative o Provision for merits review points = administrative o Binding effect on other provisions = legislative

“Made under an enactment” WHAT IS AN ENACTMENT?

s 3(1) Acts, ordinances, (cb) instruments made under such an Act Instruments are not confined to those of a legislative character; Chittick v Ackland

o Documents (like conditions of employment) which are brought into existence pursuant to sections of an Act

o Instruments are not made under where there is no provision for their making; Lewins MADE UNDER? The decision must take legal force or effect from the Act. Two criteria must be satisfied; Tang

The decision must be required or authorised by the enactment (expressly or impliedly) o Where provisions operate on the basis of a determination, that determination is impliedly required;

Mayer cf NEAT can be mere statutory significance o General incidental powers are authorised, but not made under the Act; Salerno

Capacity to confer, alter or affect legal rights and obligations must derive from the enactment o BUT those rights need not be sourced in the Act (arising at general law, contract etc) o Potentially 3rd party rights: Guss (obiter) o Can be the refusal to confer new rights; Tang [89] o Look for another potential source:

7

▪ Incorporation; NEAT ▪ “Mutual relationship”; Tang ▪ Contract, where power to enter was generally conferred; Burns ▪ Any wide general conferral of natural person powers; Tang, Telstra ▪ Incidental range of broad, non specific powers Salerno

Note: Prerogative powers are not reviewable, even where there is statutory overlap; Hawker Pacific

Reconcile Bond and Tang: Interim decisions that are essential preconditions are expressly provided for have the capacity to affect legal RLO at finality, therefore reviewable under ADJR

8

GROUNDS: DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE

A breach of natural justice is a ground of review under s 5(1)(a) ADJR; and has been recognised at general law; Plaintiff S157/2002, and even outside of the judicial review framework; Ceca Institute

1. Application: The Threshold Question Previously, the relevant threshold question was to ask whether the decision directly affected the rights, interests and legitimate expectations of the applicant; Kioa v West (Mason J). The position of legitimate expectation reached a high point in Teoh, before being attacked in Lam. The Court recently revisited the position, with the majority rejecting LE. The question is now whether the decision is apt to affect adversely a sufficient interest. Little content was given to the meaning of sufficient interest other than to equate it to standing – which is an interest greater than an ordinary member of the public. Given the uncertainty, its likely that the Court will reason by rigorous analogy to previous cases and refer to the statutory intention to determine if an interest is sufficient to attract natural justice. Broadly speaking, a sufficient interest would at least include a legitimate expectation.

1.1. Is there a clear statutory intention to exclude natural justice? NJ is not immune from legislative abrogation, but a clear intention must be evident; Kioa (Mason J). It is unlikely that NJ can be excluded by implication; Ainsworth v CJC. There must be an express, clear, written intention to conclude that NJ does not apply; Miah SUFFICIENT

Stating that the prescriptions are an exhaustive statement is clear; Lay Lat “NJ does not apply to any act, matter or thing” held sufficient; Seiffert INSUFFICIENT

A comprehensive prescription does not operate to exclude all others; Epeabaka; Annetts v McCann If required for one aspect, silence as to the other is not sufficient; Herald v VCAT Informed by objectives: decision to invite/ignore submissions based on “fairness, efficiency and speed” – NJ

would still apply, but with reference to those objectives; Miah (Gaudron) Asserted that pleasure of the Crown is not subject to NJ – but position was statutory office, thus clearer words

were needed; Jarrat v Police Comm’r NSW IN-BETWEEN

Exhaustive statement read down so as to only apply to offshore applications – Coco principle applied to protect from displacement of fundamental common law principles; Saeed

Personal, non-compellable and public interest powers are not subject to NJ if there have already been proper departmental process; Plaintiff S10

1.2. Does the decision directly affect a right, interest, or legitimate expectation?

DIRECTNESS Interests must be affected individually, not as a member of a class or the public; Village Building Co

Unless affected in a way substantially different to the public or class Distinction between exercise of power directed at an individual cf those affecting the class/public

o Changes in zoning expand the rights of the individual granted, but not the applicant in the relevant sense; Irwin

o But where decision intended to only affect a specific group NJ applies; C Inc v ACC

LEGAL RIGHTS

Rights to property; Cooper; Ridge v Baldwin Licenses are proprietary rights/privileges; Banks v TRB Membership of professional/vocational non-statutory bodies; Ridge v Baldwin Membership of clubs (Retirement Charity, Stock Exchange, Insurance Society); Ridge v Baldwin Statutory rights (to access), even if conditional upon no adverse direction; Herald v VCAT