HD and Dean's List Full Course Notes

Description

HD and Dean's List Extensive Complete Course Notes. Covering every topic and lecture for the whole term. Topics covered: Topic 1 (Weeks 1 and 2, Introduction and Foundations): What is administrative law and its relationship to the three branches of government, the five justifications for administrative law (democratic, rule of law, separation of powers, individual rights, unique executive powers), historical development and the 1971 Kerr Committee Report, the new administrative law reforms timeline (1975 AAT Act, 1977 ADJR Act, 1982 FOI Act, 2024 ART Act), layered accountability mechanisms table (judicial review, merits review, Ombudsman, FOI, parliamentary accountability, delegated legislation scrutiny), delegated legislation (types, five key validity principles, delegatus non potest delegare, distinction between primary legislation, delegated legislation, policy and administrative decisions), administrative justice values (Daly and Creyke: accuracy, fairness, consistency, transparency, efficiency, independence), credibility assessment in tribunal decision-making (Millbank: five tools and their limitations: plausibility, internal consistency, external consistency, demeanour, knowledge testing), legal vs therapeutic cultures and the Abboud v Minister for Immigration FCCA 2047 reviewability limit. Topic 2 (Weeks 2 and 3, Merits Review): Merits review vs judicial review six-dimension comparison table (question asked, scope, standard, outcome, body, policy role), the AAT (established 1975, objective s 2A, jurisdiction, divisions, independence, inquisitorial procedure, de novo review), the ART (established 14 October 2024 replacing AAT, s 9 objective, eight jurisdictional areas under s 196(1), merit-based appointments, reviewable decisions under s 12), standing for merits review (AAT Act s 27, ART Act s 17 and s 15, Re Rudd and Minister for Transport (2001), Re Control Investments v ABT (1980)), tribunal procedure (inquisitorial features: qualified duty to inquire from SZIAI (2009), not bound by rules of evidence under s 33 AAT Act, no formal burden of proof, balance of probabilities from McDonald v Director-General of Social Security), de novo review (Shi v MARA (2008) 235 CLR 286: facts assessed at time of review, Allesch v Maunz (2000)), discretionary decision-making and government policy (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration (No 2) (1979): policy as aid to consistency, cannot be applied inflexibly, correct or preferable decision standard), remedies in merits review (s 43(1) AAT Act: affirm, vary, set aside and remake, or remit). Topics 2B and 3A (Judicial Review: Jurisdiction and Scope): What is judicial review (legality only, no merits substitution), sources of jurisdiction table (Constitution s 75(v): entrenched and cannot be ousted per Plaintiff S157; ADJR Act: administrative character and under an enactment; Judiciary Act s 39B; State Supreme Courts and the Kirk guarantee), ADJR Act scope (ABT v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321: decision must be substantive, final or operative, intermediate steps not decisions, conduct preceding decisions, administrative character vs legislative and judicial activity, under an enactment requirement, Schedule 1 exclusions), standing at common law (ACF v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493: special interest test greater than ordinary member of public, mere intellectual concern insufficient, Onus v Alcoa (1981), Bateman's Bay (1998)), ADJR Act standing (s 3(4) person aggrieved, adversely affected interests, Argos Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment (2014) 254 CLR 394), extended standing under EPBC Act s 487 and the lawfare debate, reasons for decisions (Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 and Kocak (2013): no common law duty; ADJR Act s 13 statutory right to reasons: findings of fact, evidence, Schedule 2 exclusions, adequacy standard from Wingfoot and Yusuf, consequences of inadequate reasons). Topic 3 (Weeks 4 and 5, Grounds of Judicial Review Part 1): Acting without power: Entick v Carrington (1765) principle, sources of power (statutory, non-statutory executive, prerogative), NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie (2014) 250 CLR 490 (Registrar misconceived scope of power, the Act authorised non-specific sex registration, lesson on understanding full extent of power). Procedural errors: three-step analysis (identify requirement, determine breach, assess legal consequence under Project Blue Sky), mandatory vs directory distinction (Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355: obligatory requirement plus Parliamentary intent for invalidity), Forrest and Forrest v Wilson (2017) 262 CLR 510 (mining proposal and environmental management plan both mandatory), Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 (Gazette and newspaper publication mandatory). Jurisdictional facts: three-row comparison table (non-jurisdictional: not reviewable; objective: court decides for itself; subjective: court asks whether DM could rationally have formed requisite state of mind), Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration (2011) 244 CLR 144 (Malaysian Declaration Case: s 198A(3) criteria were objective JFs, Malaysia not a Refugee Convention signatory, declaration invalid), Corporation of City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 (objective JF: substantially at variance). Procedural fairness (hearing rule): threshold test from Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (direct and immediate effect on rights, interests or legitimate expectations), rights and interests broadly defined including legitimate expectations, multi-stage decision-making, statutory exclusion requires clear language (Saeed (2010), Re Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57), content of hearing rule (notice: adequate notice of case against them from Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone (1994); disclosure: credible, relevant and significant adverse material from VEAL (2005) 225 CLR 88, identity of source need not always be disclosed; opportunity to respond: real and effective not merely formal). Bias rule: apprehended bias test from Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 205 CLR 337 (fair-minded lay observer), actual bias from Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 (mind so committed to conclusion as to be incapable of alteration, Ministers entitled to have policy views), Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135 (prosecutor on penalty panel, logical connection between decisions), Asset Energy v Minister for Resources FCA 86 (PEP-11 ministerial bias), exceptions (waiver, necessity from Laws v ABT (1990) 170 CLR 70, statutory exclusion, nature of decision-maker). Topic 4 (Weeks 7 and 8, Grounds of Judicial Review Part 2): Improper purpose: three-step analysis (identify authorised purpose by statutory interpretation, identify actual purpose from reasons and surrounding circumstances, assess whether actual purpose was authorised), dominant purpose test for mixed purposes (Samrein v Metropolitan Water (1982)), R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170 (purpose inferred from statutory text and context), ADJR Act s 5(2)(c). Relevant and irrelevant considerations: three-step analysis (identify mandatory/prohibited considerations by statutory interpretation per Peko-Wallsend, determine whether DM actually took them into account, ground established), Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 (Mason J: mandatory consideration from statutory construction, failure to consider required reports invalidated decision), Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) (weight is for DM not court), Tickner v Chapman (irrelevant consideration: identity of associated person not relevant under statutory scheme). Fettering discretion and acting under dictation: Rendell v Release on Licence Board (1987) (policy cannot be applied as inflexible rule, must consider individual merits, must be willing to depart), ADJR Act s 5(2)(f), acting under dictation (Telstra Corp v Kendall (1995) 55 FCR 221: must be real exercise of DM's own judgment), the Carltona principle (Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works , O'Reilly v State Bank (1983), limits where statute requires personal decision, distinction from dictation), CPCF v Minister for Immigration (2015) 255 CLR 514. Unreasonableness: Wednesbury (classic formulation), Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 (Australian reformulation: fails to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration, or process so flawed as to produce unreasonable result), ABT17 v Minister for Immigration (2020) 269 CLR 439 (IAA reversed delegate's credibility finding without bridging informational gap, statutory context matters, both plurality and minority agreed on unreasonableness). Irrationality and illogicality: Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 (distinct from Wednesbury, applies to state of satisfaction decisions, reasoning so fundamentally flawed conclusion cannot logically follow from premises). Topic 5 (Weeks 8 to 10, Remedies and Statutory Restrictions): Jurisdictional error: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (four categories of JE in inferior courts, applied to administrative DMs by analogy), Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531 (misapprehends or disregards nature or limits of functions or powers, JE makes decision void), types of errors that are jurisdictional (wrong question, mandatory considerations, absent JF, procedural fairness breach of sufficient gravity, improper purpose, acting under dictation, severe unreasonableness), non-jurisdictional error of law. Materiality: Hossain v Minister for Immigration (2018) 264 CLR 123 (breach must be material to outcome to constitute JE), BVD17 v Minister (2019) 268 CLR 29 (applicant bears burden of establishing materiality), Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) (realistic possibility of different outcome, lower than certainty), SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421 (not material where decision could not reasonably have been different), materiality as a filter preventing technical errors from generating relief. Bhardwaj principle: Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 (JE makes decision void, DM empowered to make new decision). Prerogative writs and equitable remedies: five-remedy table (certiorari: quashes JE or non-JE on face of record; mandamus: compels performance of public duty; prohibition: prevents prospective JE; injunction: broader, available even for non-JE, s 75(v) significance; declaration: available widely, no decision needed to quash), discretion to refuse relief (applicant caused error, delay, inevitable same outcome, unclean hands), Ainsworth v CJC (1992) 175 CLR 564 (declaration where no decision to quash), Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177 (certiorari granted to quash invalid warrant, injunction to compel destruction of data refused by majority, dissent from Gageler, Gordon and Edelman JJ on constitutional liberty principle). Statutory restrictions: privative clauses (Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476: read down to apply only within jurisdiction, cannot oust s 75(v) review for JE, non-JE restriction constitutionally valid), Kirk guarantee at State level (Kirk v NSW 2010: Chapter III integrated judicial system, s 73 requires State Supreme Courts to always exist, cannot be deprived of minimum supervisory jurisdiction over JE, scope limited to JE not non-JE), no-invalidity clauses (Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris (2008) 237 CLR 146: determines whether error is JE, constitutionally valid for non-JE errors, examples s 175 ITAA 1936 and s 501G(4) Migration Act), non-compellable powers (Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319: limits mandamus but process still reviewable via procedural fairness, declaratory relief effective without mandamus), time limits (Bodruddaza v Minister (2007) 228 CLR 651: absolute non-extendable time limit on s 75(v) review constitutionally invalid, non-absolute limits permissible). Eight-step problem question framework: Step 1 identify the decision (substantive, final, operative per ABT v Bond, source of power), Step 2 jurisdiction and choice of court (s 75(v), ADJR Act, s 39B, State Supreme Courts, Schedule 1 exclusions, s 13 reasons), Step 3 standing (statute, common law special interest from ACF, ADJR Act person aggrieved, EPBC s 487), Step 4 grounds of review (10-part checklist from acting without power through to no evidence), Step 5 reasons (Osmond, ADJR Act s 13), Step 6 jurisdictional error (ADJR Act: step unnecessary; common law or s 75(v): JE vs non-JE, materiality from Hossain and Nathanson), Step 7 remedies (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, injunction, declaration, discretion to refuse), Step 8 statutory restrictions (privative clauses, no-invalidity clauses, non-compellable powers, time limits).