✅ HD APPROVED - ADMIN LAW (UPDATED FOR 2026) - MLP424

Description

Administrative Law is notoriously difficult, but these 2026 HD-approved notes transform it into a high-scoring opportunity. Optimised for the open-book format, these notes allow you to find the right grounds for review in seconds. These notes cover: 1 INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW? - Why do we need admin law? - Admin law vs constitutional law WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE? OUTSOURCING AND PRIVATISATION - Deconstructing the public/private divide - Plaintiff M68/2015 - R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; Ex parte Datafin Plc - Public function Potential Test 1: The Surprise Test - Public function Potential Test 2: The Major Consequences Test - Public law remedies against private bodies - NEAT v AWB ACCOUNTABILITY - Minor admin law values - Mechanisms for achieving accountability - The Kerr Reforms - SUMMARY 2 SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW REVIEW VS APPEAL LEGALITY V MERITS - 1st attempt: LEGAL V GOOD - 2nd attempt: LAW V FACT - REVIEW - TEST: - Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 - Project Blue Sky - Question of Law vs Fact Propositions: Agfa-Gavaert citing Pozzolanic - Hope v Bathurst - Why can judges only review legal error? STEPS FOR GETTING JUDICIAL REVIEW - Pros and cons of judicial review SOURCES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. COMMON LAW JUDICIAL REVIEW - A. Prerogative writs and equitable remedies - B. Jurisdictional error - Where there is jurisdictional error - Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (2010) - C. Exception to B: certiorari on the face of the record - Ex parte Shaw - Error on the face of the record - Craig v South Australia (1995) (re error) SUMMARY: CL JR 2. CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL REVIEW - At HCA: Who is an officer of the Cth?: s 75(v) - Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) also know as Offshore processing case - At Federal Courts (that are not the HCA) - At State courts - SUMMARY: Consti JR 3. STATUTORY JUDICIAL REVIEW - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (Cth): Main sections - - Section 3: What decisions are subject to review - Griffith University v Tang (2005) (enactment) - Sections 5, 6 + 7 - A. DECISIONS to which the act applied: s 5 - B. CONDUCT engaged for purpose of making a decision: s 6 - C. FAILURE to make a decision: s 7 - SUMMARY: Decision and Conduct - TABLE: Which one do I choose? STANDING AND JUSTICIABILITY - STANDING - Who can commence judicial review proceedings? STANDING: TESTS 1. SPECIAL INTEREST TEST (non-statutory context) 2. PERSON AGGRIEVED TEST (statutory context) - Two tests: Difference? - Indirect interests - Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell - Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd - Public Interest Groups - North Coast Environmental Council - Right to Life Association (NSW) v Sec - Other types of involvement JUSTICIABILITY - Traditional Approach - R v Toohey; ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) - R v Toohey (Toohey’s Case) - Modern Approach: Subject matter - Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd (1986) - Contemporary Basis - Subject matter and Multi-Level Decision-Making Process - Aye v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) - Effect on Individual rights - Stewart v Ronald - Exam qn example: Why should we have a justiciability exception? 3 GROUNDS OF REVIEW: INTRO AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS INTRODUCTION TO GROUNDS FOR REVIEW - Legal Error PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - PROCESS 1. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT / TEST - Kioa v West Test - - Kioa v West - A. Rights and interests - B. Legitimate expectations - Teoh - Ex Parte Lam - Multi-stage decision-making 2. STATUTORY EXCLUSION OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - Miah - Miah judgement summary: - Saeed provides a narrow interpretation of s 51A. - Saeed - Plaintiff S10/2011 - The principle of legality 3. THE HEARING RULE - Eaton - Kiao v West - VEAL - Li - O’Shea - OVERVIEW: Hearing rule 4. THE BIAS RULE - A. Actual bias - B. Apprehended bias - Jia - Exceptions to the bias rule - Laws v ABT - Ebner - Livesey v NSW - SUMMARY: Is there a breach under s 5(1)(a) or 6(1)(a)? 4 GROUNDS OF REVIEW: ERROR IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF POWER - INTRODUCTION ERROR IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF POWER 1. IMPROPER DELEGATION - Non-Delegable Power 2. PROCEDURAL ERROR - Procedural Error vs Fairness - a. Is there a procedural requirement? - b. Has the decision maker breached the procedure?: Tickner v Chapman - c. Should the breach lead to invalidity?: Project Blue Sky - Forrest and Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson 3. PRECONDITIONS OF POWER - A. Jurisdictional facts - B. Subjective opinion or belief - Hetton Bellbird Colleries - Narrow Approach to Review 4. MISCONCEIVING THE SCOPE OF THE POWER - Swan Hill v Bradbury - Vanstone v Clark - NSW Registrar of Births v Norrie 5 GROUNDS OF REVIEW: IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWER 1. NO EVIDENCE: s 5(1)(h), s 6(1)(h) - “No evidence for F” vs “There is evidence that F is not the case” 2. FRAUD: ss 5(1)(g) & 6(1)(g) - SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 3. IMPROPER EXERCISE: ss 5(1)(e) & 6(1)(e) 3a. RELEVANT & IRRELEVANT MATTERS - Peko Wallsend - i. Failure to Consider RELEVANT MATTERS - ii. Considering Irrelevant Matters - Murphyores 3b. IMPROPER PURPOSE 3c. FETTERING DISCRETION - Re Drake (No 2) - Rendell v Release on License Board - Green v Daniels 3d. BAD FAITH - SBBS v Minister for Immigration - NAKF 3e. UNCERTAINTY 3f. UNREASONABLENESS 6 CONSEQUENCES OF UNLAWFUL ACTIONS - Where can I get a remedy? 1. PREROGATIVE WRITS - A. Certiorari - Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission - B. Prohibition - C. Mandamus - Toohey’s Case - Carter v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs - Bateman’s Bay Aboriginal Land Council 2. EQUITABLE REMEDIES - A. Injunction - B. Declaration - Ainsworth 3. STATUTORY REMEDIES 4. CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES: s 75(v) - a. Why have s 75(v)? - b. Why only 3? SUMMARY OF REMEDIES 5. CHOOSING THE RIGHT REMEDIES - Difference between writs and equity - Analysing legal concepts 6. DISCRETION NOT TO GRANT REMEDIES / REMEDIAL DISCRETION - Discretion not to grant a remedy - Factors to take into account 7 JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - SOURCES - Why worry about jurisdictional error - Common law v Constitutional law JURISDICTIONAL ERROR (‘JE’) 1. DEFINING JE - Non-jurisdictional (legal) error - Probuild Constructions 2. PROBLEMS WITH JE 3. HOW TO IDENTIFY JE - PBS and JE LIMITS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. COMMON LAW LIMITATIONS 2. STATUTORY EXCLUSIONS / LIMITATIONS A. PRIVATIVE CLAUSES - I. Historical Approach to Interpretation of Privative Clauses: Hickman (the Reconciliation approach) - Interpreting Privative Clauses - Principles - II. Modern approach: Their constitutionality under modern cases - Commonwealth level: Plaintiff S157 - So what’s the connection between Hickman and the modern cases? - State level: Kirk - Kirk propositions - PRIVATIVE CLAUSES: The battle B. NON-INVALIDITY CLAUSES C. NO CONSIDERATION CLAUSES D. TIME LIMITATION CLAUSES E. NON-COMPELLABLE POWERS F. RESTRICTING INFORMATION - Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection - Summary of clauses that restrict 8 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS & MERITS REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - What is a Tribunal? - What is a Court? - Federal Court - State Courts - Judicial power - De Facto Separation of Powers? - Summary of Kable and Kirk Principles - Commonwealth Tribunals - State Tribunals - Status of Tribunal Decisions SPECIALIST, GENERALIST & SUPER TRIBUNALS - Conferral of Jurisdiction - Tribunal Membership - Independence - Procedure - Transparency - Standing to Seek Review - Nature of Review / Hearing - The Role of Government Policy APPEAL & REVIEW OF TRIBUNAL DECISIONS - Standing and Parties: s 27 AAT - Reasons for Reviewable Decisions: s 28 AAT - General procedure: s 33 - The Role of Policy - Appeals to the Federal Court: s 44 AAT - Second review: s 3 VICTORIAN CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (VCAT) - VCAT original jurisdiction - Procedural fairness requirements: Div 7 TRIBUNAL V COURT TRIBUNAL SUCCESS MERITS REVIEW - What is Merits Review? - The History TYPES OF MERITS HEARINGS 1. De Novo Hearing 2. Rehearing (aka Appeal) - Tipungwuti [2016] NTCAT 191 INTERNAL & EXTERNAL MERITS REVIEW - Internal Merits Review - External Merits Review - Courts with Merits Review Jurisdiction - Appealable Decisions ANALYSIS OF MERITS REVIEW - The Benefits - What about legal errors? - What is ‘administrative justice’? - Questions re merits review 9 OMBUDSMAN & INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 1. OMBUDSMAN - What is an Ombudsman? - History of the Ombudsman A. INQUIRY JURISDICTION - Standing B. POWERS & PROCESSES C. INDEPENDENCE - Non-legal influence? D. OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATIONS - Accountability - Ombudsman success 2. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE A. PROTECTING OFFICIAL INFORMATION - Sources of Privacy Protection - Common law protection of confidential information - Official Secrets Legislation - Public Interest Immunity in Legal Proceedings: Sankey v Whitlam B. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE - I. Voluntary disclosure - II. Involuntary disclosure - ∙ Unofficial - ∙ Obligatory I. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE II. INVOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE - Unofficial “Involuntary” Disclosure - Managing Official Information - Mandatory disclosure - Obligations to Disclose - Access to documents - Right of access: s 11 FOI Act 1982 - Access to documents - Agency: s 4 FOI Act - Access to Documents - What if government functions are outsourced to the private sector? - Osland v Secretary of the Department of Justice (No1.) (2008) - Osland v Secretary of the Department of Justice () (2010) - FOI at Commonwealth Level REASONS FOR DECISION - NO Right to Reasons at Common Law - Statutory Obligations to Give Reasons - Failure to Provide Adequate Reasons - Success of FOI and Duty to give Reasons?