(5) CONSEQUENCES - Jurisdictional Error Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

jurisdictional error simply means

A

lack of ‘authority to decide’ (ie decision has been made outside jurisdiction)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

A finding of jurisdictional error involves a conclusion that

A

the DM has departed from limits upon the exercise of power and/or has failed to exercise the power, such as to render the decision a nullity as being unsupported by the relevant law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Does ADJR include a concept of jurisdictional error?

A

No - !], if you’re proceeding under the ADJR Act and establish one of the grounds under ss 5 or 6, you can seek a remedy under s 16 without having to also argue that this was a jurisdictional error.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

When is it necessary to establish that the administrator’s error is a jurisdictional error?

A

(1) remedies require a “jurisdictional error” (as the link btw an identified legal error and the remedy)

or

(2) The statute includes a privative clause

AND MATERIALITY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When can something constitute a jurisdictional error?

A

where there is materiality (Hossain)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

A breach is material to a decision only if

A

compliance could realistically have resulted in a different decision” SZMTA (2019)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

4 examples of jurisdictional error

A

(1) denial of PF
(2) Breach of consideration grounds
(3) unreasonableness
(4) No evidence
(5) asking wrong Qs
(6) bad faith/improper purpose/unauthorised delegation/acting under dictation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How do we identify if a material error is a jurisdictional error per Hossain? Must have regard to

A

the construction of the statute to determine whether an error is of sufficient gravity or magnitude to take the DM outside the authority granted by Parliament (Hossain)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How do we identify if a material error is a jurisdictional error per Project Blue Sky?

A

whether there can be discerned a legislative purpose that any material error of this nature will invalidate the decision (ie process of statutory construction)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

If there has been a breach of statutory requirements, what do you ask?

A

Does this error go to the jurisdiction of the DM?

Whether breach of statutory requirements is a jurisdictional error depends on whether there can be discerned a legislative purpose to invalidate any act that fails to comply with the condition (Project Blue Sky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Breach of Statutory Requirements under ADJR

A

Sections 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(f) of the ADJR Act provide a ground of review where a DM has failed to observe relevant statutory procedures, or has misconstrued the proper exercise of the power in question.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

When does breach of a statutory requirement amount to jurisdictional error?

A

would it advance statutory purpose to hold the entire DM process invalid? If yes, and breached = jurisdictional error (Project Blue Sky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Although a failure to comply with statutory procedures is unlawful, the critical issue is:

A

what consequence to attach to a failure to comply with the statutory procedures? (Project Blue Sky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is a no-invalidity clause?

A

a drafting device Parliaments use to effectively answer the PBS question (consequences of non-compliance is non-jurisdictional error, ie, it doesn’t invalidate the decision)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

‘No invalidity clause’ does not preclude review of jurisdictional error otherwise

A

arising and non-compliance with the section itself does not impeach the decision for jurisdictional error (Palme)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

‘No invalidity clauses’ have effect, but not

A

absolute effect (Futuris)

17
Q

Palme and Project Blue Sky suggest that where a no-invalidity clause is narrowly confined to a particular statutory requirement or norm, courts will generally

A

give effect so such a provision.

18
Q

Futuris suggests that where a no-invalidity clause is framed too broadly, so as to evade the High Court’s entrenched minimum provision of review under s 75(v), it may be

A

invalidated on constitutional grounds.

19
Q

Facts in MZAPC (leading case on explanation of JE and explanation of materiality)

A
  • case regarded a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal determining that the applicant shouldn’t be granted a protection visa.
  • Materiality was relevant due to the Refugee Review Tribunal not disclosing to the applicant that it held documents containing adverse info about him.
  • Both parties accepted this involved a breach of PF, but there was an issue as to the materiality of the breach of PF for the Tribunal’s decision
20
Q

Outcome in MZAPC (leading case on explanation of JE and explanation of materiality)

A

final decision could’ve been different if it had considered offence of dishonesty in report covered by the undisclosed notification

  • The determinative question is whether the Tribunal in fact so took the offence into account. The answer is that there is simply no basis in the evidence to find on the balance of probabilities that it did.
21
Q

Per MZAPC, the onus is

A

on the applicant to prove that the legal error is material.

22
Q

Per MZAPC, there are conditions routinely implied into conferrals of statutory DM authority by common law principles of interpretation which of their nature incorporate

A

an element of materiality, non-compliance with which will result in a decision exceeding the limits of DM authority w/o any additional threshold needing to be met (standard condition that a DM be free from actual/apprehended bias is an eg)

23
Q

In Aala, was denial of PF by officer of Cth where the duty to observe it has not been validly limited or extinguished by statute - did this amount to jurisdictional error?

A

Yes - decision made in excess of jurisdiction and thus attract the issue of prohibition under s 75(v) of the Constitution.

  • When it made its decision, the Tribunla did not have some information that had previously been provided by Aala but he had been led to believe during the hearing that the Tribunla had “all of those files.” –> was a JE
24
Q

Facts in Project Blue Sky (1998) - breach of statutory requirements and JE

A

NZ TV industry challenge to Australian content standards for commercial TV broadcasting licensees.

  • The enabling legislation included a direction that the Authority perform its functions ‘in a manner consistent with Australia’s obliagtions’ under international agreements
25
Q

Outcome in Project Blue Sky (1998) - breach of statutory requirements and JE –>Does the ABA’s breach of the statutory direction (to be consistent with international law obligations) invalidate the Australian Content Standards?

A

An act done in breach of a condition regulating the exercise of a statutory power is not necessarily invalid and of no effect

26
Q

In Project Blue Sky (1998) - why didn’t the court just invalidate the conduct?

A

o Purpose of the act wouldn’t be served by invalidating
o Public inconvenience – these standards are written into the entire industry – if they were to invalidate it, 3rd parties who are not to blame will be greatly inconvenienced because they rely on these standards

27
Q

Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson (2017) HCA facts

A
  • An application for a mining lease did not comply with statutory requirements that an application must include a mineralisation report at the time it is lodged
  • Forrest, holder of pastoral leases on the land argued that the statutory requirements to include the mineralisation report with the application was strict and so there was no valid application before the Warden
28
Q

Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson (2017) HCA outcome

A
  • Strict compliance with the statutory requirement for a mineralisation report was essential for a valid application - there as never a valid application (expect strict compliance if giving away resources of state for private profit)
29
Q

Facts in Palme

A
  • Challenge to visa cancellation decision, where the Minister had failed to comply with a specific statutory duty to provide reasons – minister just circled
30
Q

Facts in Futuris (2008)

A
  • Futuris starts two processes to challenge a tax assessment:
    o (i) merits review;
    o (ii) judicial review under Judiciary Act s 39B(1) –>- In the judicial review, the Commissioner relies on a broad no invalidity clause
31
Q

Outcome in Futuris (2008)

A

broad invalidity clause was allowed! on basis that there was an extensive appeals procedure

32
Q

Consequences of jurisdictional error?

A

invalidity –> means that the decision lacks some if not all of the legal status that a valid decision has

33
Q

An invalid decision may retain some vitality or status in law; it is not necessarily an ‘absolute nullity’ – depends on

A

the statutory context

34
Q

[is decision valid or unlawful] facts in Bhardwaj

A
  • Immigration Review Tribunal misplaced a fax advising that the applicant could not attend the hearing due to illness - in absence of presence cancelled visa
  • The minister sought judicial review of this second decision on the basis that the tribunal, having already exercised its statutory functions lacked the power to make its second decision (after tribunal had realised error and made a new hearing that reversed original decision)
35
Q

[is decision valid or unlawful] outcome in Bhardwaj The issue was whether a merits review tribunal could re-open a decision in fact made w/o intervening court order) upon realising it had made a jurisdictional error.

A

YES – the joint reasons in Bhardwaj use ‘logic and legal principle’ to tilt the statutory interpretation exercise towards a finding that the decision can be reopened.