Category Archives: Administrative Law

R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council [1981] HCA 74

ON 24 DECEMBER 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council [1981] HCA 74; (1981) 151 CLR 170 (24 December 1981).

Delegated legislation of the Governor in Council is invalid if made for an improper purpose, namely, a purpose which is not within the scope of the empowering legislation, even if it appears valid on its face. The Crown and its agents are not immune from challenge when acting not in good faith or for ulterior purpose.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

R v Hunt; Ex Parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32

ON 19 JULY 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Hunt; Ex Parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 32; (1979) 180 CLR 322; (1979) 25 ALR 497 (19 July 1979).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1979/32.html

The Commonwealth Minister for Health was required to consider, when conducting a review of a refusal to increase fees, the costs necessarily incurred by the approved nursing home in the provision of its services.

In this case the Minister considered that the nursing home’s increased rent was not a cost necessarily incurred because it was higher than rent normally paid by other nursing homes in the state.

The court held that the Minister failed to properly deal with the application because the rent was necessarily incurred in order to obtain possession of the premises.

The court granted a mandamus directing the Minister to consider the application according to law.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43

ON 9 NOVEMBER 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1 (9 November 1978).

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39

ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html

Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.

The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33

ON 9 AUGUST 1949, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389 (9 August 1949).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/33.html

A court has a discretion to withhold the granting of a writ of mandamus:

“For example the writ may not be granted if a more convenient and satisfactory remedy exists, if no useful result could ensue, if the party has been guilty of unwarrantable delay or if there has been bad faith on the part of the applicant, either in the transaction out of which the duty to be enforced arises or towards the court to which the application is made. The court’s discretion is judicial and if the refusal of a definite public duty is established, the writ issues unless circumstances appear making it just that the remedy should be withheld.” (at 400).

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33

ON 9 AUGUST 1949, the High Court of Australia delivered R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389 (9 August 1949).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/33.html

A court has a discretion to withhold the granting of a writ of mandamus:

“For example the writ may not be granted if a more convenient and satisfactory remedy exists, if no useful result could ensue, if the party has been guilty of unwarrantable delay or if there has been bad faith on the part of the applicant, either in the transaction out of which the duty to be enforced arises or towards the court to which the application is made. The court’s discretion is judicial and if the refusal of a definite public duty is established, the writ issues unless circumstances appear making it just that the remedy should be withheld.” (at 400).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1

ON 10 NOVEMBER 1947, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1 (10 November 1947).

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html

A court will interfere with an administrative decision if (1) the decision maker took irrelevant matters into consideration (2) the decision maker failed to take into consideration matters which it ought to have considered and (3) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker would have made it.

 

Lawyers

1300 00 2088