Category Archives: Administrative Law

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2

ON 4 FEBRUARY 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; 211 CLR 476; 195 ALR 24; 77 ALJR 454 (4 February 2003).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/2.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167

ON 14 JUNE 2001, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 (14 June 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2001/167.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17

ON 29 MARCH 2001, the High Court of Australia delivered Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; 205 CLR 507; 75 ALJR 679 (29 March 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/17.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14

ON 14 APRIL 1999, the High Court of Australia delivered Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; 197 CLR 510; 162 ALR 1; 73 ALJR 584 (14 April 1999)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/14.html

In 1994, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted provisions in Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limiting the ability of the Federal Court to review the legality of an administrative decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

In 1997, Ms Abebe, an Ethiopian woman who unsuccessfully sought refugee status in Australia, brought proceedings in the Federal Court against the Immigration Minister seeking relief on the grounds that she had been denied natural justice and that the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision declining her application for permanent residence was unreasonable. The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Ms Abebe then made an application to the High Court, challenging Part 8 of the Act and seeking orders for prerogative relief.

The High Court dismissed Ms Abebe’s application, determining that the provisions of Part 8 were not outside of the legislative powers or the Commonwealth.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] HCA 24

ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1996, the High Court of Australia delivered Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51 (12 September 1996).

The High Court established the principle that a State Parliament may not legislate to confer a power on a State Court that is inconsistent or repugnant to the State Court’s Chapter III judicial power as a court exercising federal jurisdiction under the Constitution.

The High Court held that the Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) was incompatible with Chapter III as it required the NSW Supreme Court to order the continued imprisonment of a person convicted of manslaughter after the expiration of his sentence.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58

ON 24 OCTOBER 1995, the High Court of Australia delivered Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (24 October 1995) 

At 179:

“If … an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal’s exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. Such an error of law is jurisdictional error which will invalidate any order or decision of the tribunal which reflects it.”

At 180:

“a failure by an inferior court to take into account some matter which it was, as a matter of law, required to take into account in determining a question within jurisdiction or reliance by such a court upon some irrelevant matter upon which it was, as a matter of law, not entitled to rely in determining such a question will not ordinarily involve jurisdictional error”.

At 177:

A court falls into jurisdictional error “if it mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction or if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist”.

At 177:

Jurisdictional error “is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers”.

At 177-8

Examples of a court acting beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining a matter outside the limits of the court’s functions include:

  • the absence of a jurisdictional fact
  • disregard of a matter that a relevant statute requires to be taken into account or ignored as a condition of jurisdiction.
  • misconstruction of the relevant statute thereby misconceiving the nature of the court’s function or extent of its powers with respect to the particular issue, though the line between jurisdictional error and mere error of exercise of jurisdiction may be difficult to identify.

Legal Helpdesk

1300 00 2088

 

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

ON 1 JULY 1993, the substantive provisions of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lca2007131/

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125

ON 21 AUGUST 1992, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125.

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

ON 1 JULY 1991, the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991 commenced.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ssa1991186/

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (“Bond Media case”) [1990] HCA 33

ON 26 JULY 1990, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (“Bond Media case”) [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 (26 July 1990).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/33.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088