(4.3) JR OF LAW MAKING - REASONING PROCESS GROUNDS OF REVIEW - (Unauthorised Delegation and Agency) Flashcards
ADJR: where a decision is made by a person without the jurisdiction to make the decision, or where the decision is not authorised by an enactment a ground of review will be established per
(s 5(1)(c); (d) ADJR)
Common Law: where a power is conferred on a DM, in the absence of any express or implied power to delegate that power, the named repository must
exercise the power personally (Peko-Wallsend; Re Ombudsmen)
Whether delegate’s exercise of DM power amounts to unlawful delegation depends on whether
they acted independently of DM in their own name (signs in their own name)
Delegation requires what to be valid?
statutory power to delegate (this is a matter of statutory construction) (O’Reilly)
The absence of an express power of delegation may
weigh against the implication if the particular legislative history shows an informed and deliberate choice, suggesting parliament intended.
To act through the agency of others what is required?
express or implied statutory power for the formal decision-maker to act through agency of others + proper authorisation given in fact
Can Ministers rely on agents?
Yes Ministers are implied to have power to utilise agents (Carltona)
The implication for ministers to rely on agents is favoured where
the volume of individual cases requiring exercise of the power make it impractical for the repository to act in all cases (O’Reilly –> was absent in Peko-Wallsend, Nelson Bay)
The implication for ministers to rely on agents is less likely to be favoured where
(1) exercise of power likely to adversely affect individuals (O’Reilly; Peko-Wallsend) or
(2) involves a discretion or formation of opinion (Peko-Wallsend; Nelson Bay) and/or
(3) the subject matter of the opinion involves giving effect to a high pulic puporse (Nelson Bay)
What’s test for determining whether Parliament intended that the power be exercised personally or does it intend that it be exercisable via agents?
Construe statute, considering (O’Reilly):
- Nature of the power – eg if to consider broad issues of policy, likely personal
- Practical necessity – lots of decisions being made? NB particular emphasis placed on this point
- Adversely affect individuals? There might not be an implied power if the exercise of the power will be likely to affect rights of individuals adversely
- The breadth of the discretion and the accountability of the agent to the principal
If exercise of power is contingent on person holding an opinion (eg subjective jurisdictional fact) can an agent be used?
NO
relevant opinion must be held by specified person (agent holding it is insufficient) (Nelson Bay Claim)
in that case, ATSI land rights – important historical purpose, residential purposes (high level policy considerations eg roads, drainage), no express delegation power
Failure to use agent appropriately or shouldn’t have used agent in decision results in
jurisdictional error (MATERIALITY - not ADJR)
Facts in Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] (UK Case)
- Challenge to a decision to take possession of a factory during WWII
- Assistant Secretary made the decision to take possession of the particular factory – argued that it wasn’t acceptable that an official made the decision ie, not the Minister
Outcome in Facts in Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] (UK Case)
the Minister for works could act through agency of an official when issuing a statutory notice to requisition private land to aid the war effort (during WWII). ==> thousands of requisitions at the time, - no Minister could personally attend to multifarious functions given.
(but contrast this against the more cautious consideration in Peko-Wallsend and Nelson Bay case)
Facts in O’Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Victoria (1982) (leading case! which restates Carltona as Aus leading authority)
- Notice to the applicant to attend and give evidence in relation to income tax assessments – first step of investigation into financial affairs of a person
- The statutory power: The Commissioner may issue notices requiring individual taxpayers to give information or evidence to tax investigators.
- Delegation: The Commissioner formally delegated this power to Deputy Commissioners.
- Delegates by-passed: The power was in fact exercised by Chief Investigation Officers, acting as agents for Deputy Commissioners.