Jurisdictional fact

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. ^[1] A number of scholars have tried, with limited success, to categorise them. ^{[2] [3] [4]}

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the seminal definition is the English law case of Anisminic . ^[5]

Some countriesm, like Singapore, India and Canada that have written constitutions, can be constrained in their definition of "jurisdictional facts" and due to the restraints in their constitutions. ^{[6] [ failed verification ]}

Australia

In Australia the High Court has been reticent to define jurisdictional facts ^[7] finding that "The principles as to how one determines whether something is a jurisdictional fact are settled but necessarily imprecise. That must be so." and that "to define Jurisdictional fact is neither necessary nor desirable." ^[8] Despite this, Australian courts have made efforts to define the concept of jurisdictional fact, including the following:

• "A condition of jurisdiction". ^[9]
• "A preliminary question on the answer to which … jurisdiction depends". ^[10]
• An "event or requirement" constituting "an essential condition of the existence of jurisdiction". ^[11] ...."a condition of jurisdiction", without which a tribunal can not act.
• But the leading definition in Australia is the "criterion, satisfaction of which enlivens the power of the decision-maker" found in Enfield. ^[12]

These criteria of jurisdiction are created by and operate through statute, ^[13] and may be subjective, ^[14] or objective in nature and may also be a complex of interactions. ^{[15] [16]} but they must not be illogical, ^[14] or capricious and must be actual. ^[17]

Singapore

In Singapore the concept is called "precedent fact errors".

See also

• Jurisdictional error

References

1. Kelly, M (2009). Administrative Law Law Briefs. Pearson Education Australia.
2. Aronson, M; Dyer, B & Groves, M (2009). Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th ed.). [1.90].
3. Jaffe L, "Judicial Review: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Fact" (1957) 70 Harvard Law Review 953.
4. Creyke, R & McMillan, J (2012). Control of Government Action: Text, Cases and Commentary (3rd ed.).
5. Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] UKHL 6 , [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords (UK).
6. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21 , (1990) 170 CLR 1 at [127].
7. Hunt, LM & Groves, DG (2007). Australian Administrative Law, Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines. Cambridge University Press. p. 335.
8. Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW [2010] HCA 1 , (2010) 239 CLR 531 at [71], High Court (Australia).
9. R v Connell [1944] HCA 42 , (1944) 69 CLR 407 at pp 429-430, High Court (Australia).
10. R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Pilkington ACI (Operations) Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 60 , (1978) 142 CLR 113 at p 125], High Court (Australia).
11. Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 , (1995) 184 CLR 163 at [17], High Court (Australia)
12. Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5 , (2000) 199 CLR 135 at p 148, High Court (Australia).
13. Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL [1999] NSWCA 8 , (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 at [28], Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia).
14. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 , (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [30], High Court (Australia)
15. Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 , (1999) 197 CLR 611 at [130], High Court (Australia).
16. R v Hickman [1945] HCA 53 , [(1945) 70 CLR 598 , High Court (Australia).
17. Liversidge v Anderson [1941] UKHL 1 , [1942] 2 AC 206 at 21, House of Lords (UK).