Jurisdictional error

Last updated

Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", [1] [2] and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice. [3]

Contents

Australia

In Australia, the definition of jurisdictional error can be found in High Court judgements.

Hayne J has defined jurisdictional error in the following terms:

The difficulty of drawing a bright line between jurisdictional error and error in the exercise of jurisdiction should not be permitted, however, to obscure the difference that is illustrated by considering clear cases of each species of error. There is a jurisdictional error if the decision maker makes a decision outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred on him or her, or does something which he or she lacks power to do. By contrast, incorrectly deciding something which the decision maker is authorised to decide is an error within jurisdiction. [4]

A more specific definition of Jurisdictional error is defined as follows:

Jurisdictional error is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers. [5]

The power of superior courts to respond to jurisdictional error by issuing the prerogative writs is entrenched in Australia's constitution:

[T]he jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution cannot be removed by or under a law made by the Parliament. Specifically, the jurisdiction to grant s 75(v) relief where there has been jurisdictional error by an officer of the Commonwealth cannot be removed. [6] [7]

However, the term has been subject to criticism. In 2008, Kirby J held:

The classification is conclusory. It is very difficult to define and to apply. In recent years it has been substantially discarded by English legal doctrine. Jurisdictional error is nearly impossible to explain to lay people even though the Constitution (including the central provisions in s 75(v)) belongs to them. Most non-lawyers would regard it as a lawyer's fancy. [8]

Types

Mark Aronson identifies eight categories of jurisdictional error: [9]

This list is non-exhaustive, as these grounds lead to invalidity and therefore jurisdictional error.

Jurisdictional error is a separate ground of review under the ADJR Act, sought on the ground "that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision". The nine statutory grounds of review provided for in s 5 of the ADJR Act overlap substantially with the concept of jurisdictional error at common law. [10] [11] Jurisdictional error can "be seen to embrace a number of different kinds of errors" administered in an administrative tribunal. As such, the circumstances of a particular case may permit more than one characterisation." [12]

Canada

Canadian administrative law has a similar set of concepts called substantive review which incorporates most of the criteria of jurisdictional error.[ citation needed ]

Singapore

In Singapore they are known as "precedent fact errors" but work effectively like the United Kingdom jurisprudence. [13]

Hong Kong

Judicial review in Hong Kong is effectively the English system and is enshrined in Article 35 of the constitution.

United Kingdom

In the UK, the House of Lords has held they are "... an incorrect interpretation of a statutory phrase by the ... authorities [that] amounted to an error of law that was judicially reviewable". [14]

As with Canada, judicial review in Scotland does not use the term but holds many of the concepts in their judicial review system. [15]

Grounds

In the CCSU Case, [16] Lord Diplock suggests that the grounds can be reduced to three or four broad concepts – illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality. [17]

Other countries

The term jurisdictional error is not used in:

Related Research Articles

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Appeals Tribunal</span> Australian tribunal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries. Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class"; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group. While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law</span> Singapores application of legal concept to protect the exercise of executive power

Exclusion of judicial review has been attempted by the Parliament of Singapore to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total ouster clauses into Acts of Parliament, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise judicial review. In contrast, Singapore cases suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span> Type of clause in legislation

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Jurisdictional fact are facts which must objectively exist before a statutory power can be exercised by a decision-maker. They are created by and operate in the context of government authority produced by statute and are linked to the legal concept of jurisdiction. A number of scholars have tried, with limited success, to categorise them.

Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia deals with matters relating to the governance of Australian territories. It gives the Commonwealth Parliament complete legislative power over the territories. This power is called the territories power. The extent and terms of the representation of the territories in the House of Representatives and the Senate are also stated as being at the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf, also known as 'Yusuf', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales</i>

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional limits on State Courts' powers and the doctrine of jurisdictional error.

References

  1. ↑ Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 524.
  2. ↑ Bowser v Collins 1482, YB22EDIV fol30 pl11.
  3. ↑ Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58
  4. ↑ Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57.
  5. ↑ Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58.
  6. ↑ Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2 [98] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ)
  7. ↑ Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1 [95] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ)
  8. ↑ Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Limited [2008] HCA 32 [129]
  9. ↑ M Aronson, B Dyer and M Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action 4th ed, 2009, [1.90].
  10. ↑ Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5
  11. ↑ "Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service"[1985] AC 374.
  12. ↑ "Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf" [2001] HCA 30
  13. ↑ Lau Seng Poh v. Controller of Immigration [1985–1986] S.L.R.(R.) 180, H.C. (Singapore).
  14. ↑ Edwards v. Bairstow [1955] UKHL 3, [1956] A.C. 14
  15. ↑ Rules of Court (Scotland) Chapter 58
  16. ↑ Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
  17. ↑ Günther Doeker-Mach, Guenther Doeker-Mach, Klaus A. Ziegert, 'Law and Legal Culture in Comparative Perspective' (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004) page 291.
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.