Delegata potestas non potest delegari

Last updated

Delegata potestas non potest delegari is a principle in constitutional and administrative law that means in Latin that "no delegated powers can be further delegated". Alternatively, it can be stated delegatus non potest delegare ("one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power"). [1]

Contents

The principle is present in several jurisdictions such as that of the United States, the United Kingdom and India as well as in Catholic canon law.

Australia

In Australia the maxim has been largely superseded by statute and common law. [2] [3] [4] There is a long line of authorities applying the Carltona principles [5] to Australia. [6] [7] [8] [9]

However, courts have found that where a statute expressly requires a personal action, such delegation is not possible. [10] [11] [12]

In Dooney [13] the High Court of Australia (Callinan J), [14] observed that "No permanent head of a department in the Public Service is expected to discharge personally all the duties which are performed in his name and for which he is accountable to the responsible Minister."

This case law has been backed up by legislation. Section 34AA and 34AAB of the federal government's Acts Interpretation Act 1901 clearly create a statutory power to delegate, contrary to the maxim. The federal legislation is echoed in some state legislation. [15]

Section 34AB(1)(b), however, prohibits a delegate to further delegate; consequently a Minister delegating to a Secretary does not allow the Secretary to delegate to an Assistant Secretary. Vestiges of the maxim have therefore been preserved by the Act.

Canada

The principle was summarised in Canada in 1943, in an article in the Canadian Bar Review by John Willis. While it is acknowledged as "the seminal articulation of the law governing the subdelegation of statutory and discretionary powers" [1] and it is still often cited, [16] it has not achieved the rigid standing that was originally intended. The maxim has had some success as an operating principle in the restriction of delegation of legislative and judicial powers, but the demands of modern governmental regulatory practices have inhibited its application in the delegation of administrative powers. [1] Exceptions are rare and dependent on the statute conferring power. [17] [18]

India

In India, the principle is used in Indian Contract Act, 1872 Sec 190 which deals with agency.[ citation needed ] It was first applied in A K Roy v State of Punjab (1986) 4 SCC 326, which held that sub-delegation of delegated power is ultra vires to the Enabling Act. [19] [ not specific enough to verify ]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the concept has been used to question the validity of the Parliament Act 1949, because that Act expanded the power of the House of Commons but was passed solely by that House (under the terms of the Parliament Act 1911) without the consent of the House of Lords. [20]

United States

In the United States, one of the earliest mentions of the principle occurred when it was cited by counsel for one of the litigants before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1794, in M'Intire v. Cunningham, 1 Yeates 363 (Pa. 1794). The summary of the case reports, "Mr. Wilson had given no power to Noarth to transact his business; but if he even had, it is a maxim, that delegata potestas non potest delegari." [21]

The maxim was first cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Sav. Bank, 104 U.S. 728 (1881) in which the case summary reports that one of the litigants argued, "The duty imposed by statute on the commissioner cannot be delegated to a collector. Delegata potestas non potest delegari." [22]

Catholic canon law

Canon 137 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

  • § 1 Ordinary executive power can be delegated either for an individual case or for all cases, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
  • § 2 Executive power delegated by the Apostolic See can be subdelegated, either for an individual case or for all cases, unless the delegation was deliberately given to the individual alone, or unless subdelegation was expressly prohibited.
  • § 3 Executive power delegated by another authority having ordinary power, if delegated for all cases, can be subdelegated only for individual cases; if delegated for a determinate act or acts, it cannot be subdelegated, except by the express grant of the person delegating.
  • § 4 No subdelegated power can again be subdelegated, unless this was expressly granted by the person delegating.

See also

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the Australian and UK parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an act of the Parliament of Australia, the other an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

The doctrine of nondelegation is the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of powers of any of the three branches of government to either of the other, to the administrative state, or to private entities. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

<i>Ultra vires</i> Legal concept meaning powers are exceeded

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders, that together form administrative laws that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government, including executive departments and independent agencies. Because Congress, the president, and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

In the jurisprudence of the canon law of the Catholic Church, a dispensation is the exemption from the immediate obligation of the law in certain cases. Its object is to modify the hardship often arising from the rigorous application of general laws to particular cases, and its essence is to preserve the law by suspending its operation in such cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

A Commissary Apostolic is an office in the Catholic church. The Pope appoints commissaries as delegates for judicial and executive matters.

The Carltona doctrine expresses the idea that, in United Kingdom law, the acts of government departmental officials are synonymous with the actions of the minister in charge of that department. The point was established in Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sources of Singapore law</span>

There are three general sources of Singapore law: legislation, judicial precedents, and custom.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. This case represented a challenge to the OSHA practice of regulating carcinogens by setting the exposure limit "at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated." OSHA selected that standard because it believed that (1) it could not determine a safe exposure level and that (2) the authorizing statute did not require it to quantify such a level. The AFL Industrial Union Department served as the petitioner; the American Petroleum Institute was the respondent. A plurality on the Court, led by Justice Stevens, wrote that the authorizing statute did indeed require OSHA to demonstrate a significant risk of harm in order to justify setting a particular exposure level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review</span> Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.

Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. It is regarded as a form of illegality. An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body. If the High Court finds that a decision-maker has fettered its discretion, it may hold the decision to be ultra vires – beyond the decision-maker's powers – and grant the applicant a suitable remedy such as a quashing order to invalidate the decision.

Legal interpretation in South Africa refers to the juridical understanding of South African legislation and case law, and the rules and principles used to construct its meaning for judicial purposes. Broadly speaking there are three means by which and through which South African scholars and jurists construe their country's statutory law: linguistics or semantics, common law and jurisprudence. Although statutory interpretation usually involves a personal predisposition to the text, the goal is generally to "concretise" it: to harmonise text and purpose. This is the final step in the interpretative process. Statutory interpretation is broadly teleological, comprising as it does first the evaluation and then the application of enacted law.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle in criminal law that requires a court to interpret an ambiguous or unclear criminal statute in the way that is most favorable to the defendant. The rule has a long history in the English and American common law tradition and has been an important element of the relationship between the courts and the legislature, but its role in modern jurisprudence is less clear.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Mullan, D.J. (2001). Essentials of Canadian Law: Administrative Law. Toronto, ON: Irwin Law. p. 368. ISBN   1-55221-009-X.
  2. ↑ M Aronson and M Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Thomson Lawbook Co, 2013) at 6.20.
  3. ↑ D. C. Pearce and S. Argument, Delegated Legislation in Australia (Lexis Nexis, 2012) at 2.31.
  4. ↑ R. Creyke & J. McMillan, Control of Government Action: Text, Cases and Commentary (3rd ed, 2012.)
  5. ↑ Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560.
  6. ↑ O'Reilly v State Bank of Victoria Commissioners (1983) 153 CLR 1 at 11 and 18.
  7. ↑ DPP v His Honour Judge Fricke [1993] 1 VR 361.
  8. ↑ Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 37–38.
  9. ↑ Racecourse Co-operative Sugar Association Ltd v Attorney-General (Qld) [1979] HCA 50 per Gibbs J. at 22.
  10. ↑ Kutlu v Director of professional Services Review (2011)197 FCR 177.
  11. ↑ Din v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 147 ALR 673 at 682.
  12. ↑ Racecourse Co-operative Sugar Association Ltd v Attorney-General (Qld) [1979] HCA 50 per Gibbs J. at 22.
  13. ↑ Dooney v Henry (2000) 174 ALR 41.
  14. ↑ Matthew Groves, H. P. Lee, Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines (Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 262.
  15. ↑ See, for example, the Interpretation Act 1987 of New South Wales, section 48; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA); Interpretation Act 1918 (WA).
  16. ↑ Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 SCR 12
  17. ↑ Mullan, D.J. (2001). Essentials of Canadian Law: Administrative Law. Toronto, ON: Irwin Law. p. 370. ISBN   1-55221-009-X.
  18. ↑ Ramawad v Canada (Minister of manpower and Immigration), [1978] 2 SCR 375
  19. ↑ "In Re: The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 and the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950" (Document). Manupatra.
  20. ↑ "Parliament Act 1949". UK Parliament. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
  21. ↑ M'Intire v. Cunningham, 1 Yeates 363 (Pa. 1794).
  22. ↑ United States v. Sav. Bank , 104 U.S. 728 (1881); see also, J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States Archived 2011-07-21 at the Wayback Machine , 276 U.S. 394, 405-406 (U.S. 1928).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.