(4.3) JR OF LAW MAKING - REASONING PROCESS GROUNDS OF REVIEW - (Improper/Unauthorised Purpose) Flashcards
Under ADJR Act, aggrieved will have a ground for JR of an ‘exercise of power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred’ was made by the decision maker per
s 5(2)(c) ADJR Act
Under Common Law, DM must act for the purpose for which the power is conferred. Doing otherwise is
a jurisdictional error as the decision is not authorised by power (Toohey)
After construing the Act to determine what court would likely ascertain the purpose to be, what do you apply?
Multiple purposes doctrine –> consider what the substantial purpose is and if that purpose is a proper purpose (Samrein)
A decision will be beyond power if the decision would not have been made but for the improper purposes (ie, if it was the initiating or aiding purpose)
If decision made for a purpose that is extraneous to Act then decision is ultra vires, which means
Vitiates or invalidates the exercise of power such that it is jurisdictional error (Samrein)
+ Materiality (not ADJR)
o Deportation order served, West German temporary travel permit used, seat booked on West German airline, airline directed to receive applicant on board flight – here decision to deport really disguised as extradition –> was it valid?
Invalid –> not authorised by proper purpose of the Act (Schlieske)
o Planning law used to defeat ATSI land claim (unauthorised purpose) – said area far away from Darwin was part of Darwin – –> valid?
invalid –> power could only be used for planning purposes eg, setting out where parts of city located (Toohey)
o Statute gave power to acquire land for own office space – Water Board acquired land for new building – 42 stories but only needed 21 – going into Joint Venture with GIO – which would have the other 21 – JV was just means of the main purpose to provide for its own office space – was it valid or not?
valid –> would have acquired land even if it wasn’t going to develop parts of it to fund expansion
substantial purpose was for offices – legitimate purpose (Samrein)
o Randwick Council wanted to expand road to coogee – had power to expropriate houses to expand road, but council expropriated more houses than needed so that it could sell the unneeded houses to raise revenue for the road - valid or invalid
invalid – substantial purpose was improper (Thompson v Randwick)
