Judicial Review Flashcards
What are the three grounds for judicial review?
- Fairness (Natural Justice and the Right to Be Heard)
- Legality (Relevant/Irrelevant Considerations and Improper Purpose)
- Substantive Issues (Unreasonableness/Proportionality)
What is natural justice with regards to judicial review?
Natural justice within a judicial review context is essentially fairness
What is fairness in regards to?
Fairness with regards to the decision making process
What are the relevant cases concerning natural justice or fairness?
Right to Be Heard Cases
Ridge v Baldwin
Minister of Immigration v Daganyasi
Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield Ltd
Brief facts of Ridge v Baldwin
Mr. Ridge, a police chief is arrested and charged but ultimately acquitted.
However, his behaviour called his conduct in question and the watch committee unilaterally sacks him.
Mr. Ridge sues the watch committee on the grounds that he should have been informed of the judges, that is afforded his right to be heard.
What was the outcome of Ridge v Baldwin?
Court found that the right to be heard should have been afforded to Mr. Ridge
What was the courts reasoning in granting Mr. Ridge the right to be heard in Ridge v Baldwin?
The court reasoned that the right to be heard should have been afforded on two basis;
- The individual nature of the case, in that the applicant was directly affected by the decision made
- The rigour of the process; despite the watch committee adhering to statute, the lack of guidelines in the statute required an intervention from the courts
What is the key takeaway from Ridge v Baldwin?
The right to be heard is very contextual and will differ on the factual scenario
Brief facts of Minister of Immigration v Daganyasi
Daganyasi, a Fijian women, was charged and convicted for overstaying her temporary visa. Ordered to be deported back to Fiji.
Daganyasi appeals to the Minister of Immigration, who possess the power to overturn the deportation order, on the humanitarian grounds of her sons medical condition. She reasoned that her son would not survive in Fiji given his medical condition.
Minister declines her appeal on the advice of his medical commissioner. Daganyasi applies of judicial review of decision.
What was the courts outcome in Minister of Immigration v Daganyasi?
The court found that the medical advice provided to the Minister was flawed. The advice purported to represent the views of Daganyasi’ clinic but no such advice was sought and was actually contradictory.
Ruled that the decision making process was flawed and therefore the decision was invalid.
Decision quashed
On what basis did the court arrive at its conclusion in Daganyasi?
Courts relied on the same basis as Ridge, in that the nature of the case was highly individualised and that the statute governing the power was vague as to how it should be exercised
Are there any additional contextual considerations in Daganyasi that exceed Ridge?
Yes. The court found that the decision was a quasi judicial one as the statute required the minister to test views and arbitrate. Therefore despite an element of discretion with regards to how he goes about testing those views, the testing itself must be of quality (the medical consultation).
In Daganyasi, how was the medical consultation, or the testing of views, flawed?
The Minister and his commissioner was required to test views but they did not test all views. The commissioner purported to represent Daganyasi position but had not consulted her.
Given the individual and quasi-judicial context, she had a right to be heard in relation to the evidence gathered.
Since the evidence was not fully representative hence flawed, the decision made by the minister was held invalid.
Is there a common law implication in Ridge and Daganyasi?
In both cases, statute did not expressly grant the right to be heard nor did the respondents violate its terms.
However, the court found that the guidelines (rigour) were not sufficient for the power offered. That, in part with the context, implied a common law right to be heard.
Factual background of Discount Brand Ltd v Westfield Ltd
Discount Brands Ltd applied for a consent to build outside the delegated shopping zone and for that consent to not be notified.
The waiver could be granted as provided per statute; that the waiver would have a minor effect and that neighbouring business approved of the waiver (or made reasonable efforts to attain approval)
Council staffers advise against waiver as there is not enough evidence. Council disregards its own staff advice and relies on the word of one business owner. Waiver granted.
Westfield, hearing of the internal dissent, applied for judicial review of the councils decision.
What was the outcome of Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield Ltd
The courts ruled that the information gathering process, pursuant to the criteria laid out in statute, was not fully adhered to. Economic standard not met by relevant experts.
The decision making process was not as it should be therefore the decision to waive Discount Brands notification was held invalid.
On what basis did the court rule against Discount Brands?
The decision making process, information gathering process, was expressly laid out in statute. Discount Brands did not consult the necessary experts as statute implied.
How does Discount Brands relate to the right to be heard?
The right to be heard is encapsulated in the decision making or information gathering process in where the effects were required to be minor and that business approve.
Business did approve but the adverse effects required economic experts which were not consulted, that is the right to be heard.
How does Discount Brands distinguish itself from Ridge/Daganyasi
The case here is not of an individual nature and the statute is not vague as to how the power is to be exercised.
This case concerns not meeting the statutory guidelines out of which a right to be heard might be infringed.
How does Daganyasi and Discount Brands relate to one another?
Both cases emphasise the testing of views which exemplifies the decision making process.
In both cases, the testing of views was subpar. In Daganyasi, it fell short of a common law implication. In Discount Brands, it fell short of the implied statutory standard.
What are the legality cases, or relevant/irrelevant and improper cause cases?
1 Fiordland Venison.
- Warlich v Bate
- Minister of Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend
- Minister of Immigration v Tavita
- Minister of Immigration v Puli’ueva
- Unison Network v Commerce Commission
What are the facts of Fiordland Venison case?
Liscening arrangement for deer processors revamped to meet foreign standards. Fiordland vension misses out during transition phase and applies for exemption to minster.
Minister declines on the basis that it would harm the economic interests of a nearby firm. Review sought of decision
