Major Court and Tribunal Decisions †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Major Court and Tribunal Decisions. Answer: Introduction: It is important to state that from the very beginning that the subject-matter of administrative law relied upon the principles of fundamental values. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that the principles of accountability, rationality, decision-making and rule of law are consistent with the concept of administrative justice. The concept and mechanisms of administrative law is a long debated topic which is a matter of concern for the contemporary authors[1]. The essay is commissioned to examine the mechanisms of administrative law which proved to be inefficient in providing appropriate justice to individuals. Therefore it can be agreed that an individual has to rely upon the Court of justice by ignoring the action taken by the Administrative tribunals. In order emphasize the action of the administrative tribunals it is important to explain the functionality. Administrative tribunals are regarded as governmental agencies specialized in dealing with judicial procedure that has been established under the legislative framework of federal and provincial government. However various public authorities and public boards are entrusted with the power of decision making which includes- administrative tribunals, administrative boards and other public bodies. It is noteworthy to mention here that the administrative tribunals follow the basic principles of common laws and applies the statutes accordingly. However, the procedural rules are also applicable and therefore the administrative tribunal is bound to follow the procedural constraints. Therefore, it can be stated that while performing judicial and quasi-judicial functions the statutory decision makers are governed by the principles of common law[2]. However, it can be observed that the dis puting parties sometimes require the formal procedures of Court for resolving the matter concerned. Therefore, in such cases the disputing parties are at the authority to question the administrative proceedings and the substantial question of law involved in relation to the principles of natural justice. In some cases it can be observed on the part of the administrative tribunals to contemplate a decision which is informal in nature. In such cases, the impact of the decision given by the administrative tribunal may be relatively minor as compared to courts and the parties involved in such administrative proceedings shall not be entitled to natural justice[3]. Therefore, in such cases the Courts are at the authority evaluate the legality of the decision given by the administrative tribunals by relying upon the doctrine of fairness. It can be rightly stated that Courts are entrusted with supervisory jurisdiction on the actions performed by the administrative tribunals, boards and other public bodies. However, in cases where the disputing parties are affected by the decision taken by the administrative tribunals may present an application before the Court to review the decision of the administrative tribunal. Such process is considered as judicial review which involves the application of both procedural judicial review and substantial judicial review. Procedural judicial review is conducted by the Courts when the decision taken by the administrative tribunal has not complied with procedural fairness. However, the process of substantive judicial review challenges the decision of the administrative bodies itself[4]. If it appears to the parties that there has been illegality and irrationality in the decision taken by the administrative tribunal, then the disputing parties are at the opportunity to apply for substan tial judicial review. It can be mentioned that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts over the administrative tribunals is governed by the rule of law. Therefore, the Parliament and the provincial legislatures do not have the authority to exclude the right to judicial review as the individuals are dependent on the rulings of the Court as they are at the impression that whether the administrative tribunals have acted according to the principles of law[5]. It can be stated that the right to exercise judicial review is discretionary and the Courts are at the authority to perform judicial review whenever necessary. In this regard, the standard of review can be emphasized which refers to the process of review that should be determined by the courts while deferring the decision made by an administrative authority rather than overriding the decision. The review of administrative action is approached by the Courts for the purpose of determining the issues in concern. Traditionally, the Courts applied the test of standard reasonableness and correctness in identifying that whether a decision is a subject to judicial review or not. However, it requires significant period for identifying the amount of unreasonableness and irrationality in the decision. Therefore, in order to deal with such confusion the standard of patent unreasonableness was enacted for the purpose of dealing with situations where the legislative framework contains a privative clause. The presence of the privative clause signifies that the decision made by the administrative authority cannot be reviewed by the Courts. Therefore the standard of patent unreasonableness prevents the intention of the legislature to exclude the practice of judicial review[6]. Therefore, privative clause may be include in the statute of a tribunal which limits the practice of judicial review thereby declaring the decision of the tribunal to be final and binding upon the parties. In relation to the privati ve clause the supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised by the Courts. However, the existence of a statutory right of appeal does not signify that that the decision taken by the administrative tribunal is final and binding. In this regard, the Court has the authority to refuse the application of judicial review of an administrative decision unless and until there has been exhaustion of statutory rights of appeal. The Courts are at the authority to consider the expertise of the tribunal in matters which involves the substantial question of law and fact. In this regard, if it comes to the knowledge of the Courts regarding the fact that the tribunal are not specialized to deal with specific matters then the Courts shall perform judicial review. In case where the issues contained in the matter in concern relates to the rights of the disputing parties, the intervention of Courts is required. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that the remedial jurisdiction of the Court to perform judicial review is limited to the powers that have been depicted in the appropriate statute[7]. In this regard, an example of the powers of the Ontario Divisional Court can be illustrated which are outlined in Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act and in Section 18.1(3) of the Federal Court Act in case of Federal Courts[8]. It is important to state here that the Courts are entrusted with the power to grant relief against an order given by an administrative tribunal with an exception of costs. For instance, it may occur on the part of the Court to order an administrative tribunal to reconsider the matter and make the decision accordingly which may happen as a result of an application for judicial review applied by the parties to dispute. However, the Court does not provide limitations on an application from doing any act or refrain from doing any act in relation to the application for judicial review[9]. It is obvious that both the Federal Court and the Divisional Court are not at the authority to award damages on judicial review. However both the Federal Courts and the Divisional Courts are at the authority to make interim orders which includes both staying and suspending orders involving an administrative proceeding pending the application for judicial review. It can be rightly mentioned that the power of the Federal and Divisional Courts proved to be significant for two reasons. Firstly, the decision taken by an administrative authority shall not be pending to judicial review automatically. Secondly, most of the administrative tribunals are not entrusted with a power to make staying order of the decision made by them which is pending review. In such cases, if it appears to such administrative tribunal that it shall be appropriate to suspend the decision made by it while an application for judicial review is pending, then in this regard such tribunal has no authority. The Courts are only at the authority to suspend or stay an order. In order to proceed with the mechanisms of administrative law the fundamental elements of Australian administrative law can be emphasized- judicial review and merits review. The subject-matter of judicial review is concerned with the legitimacy of administrative decisions however the concept of merit review deals with the part of a decision carried out by different public authorities[10]. It is worth mentioning that the distinction between judicial and merit review enumerated as a result of the separation of powers which is commonly practiced in the Australian jurisdiction. The process of merit review is conducted in order to ensure the rationality or correctness of a legally sound decision made by a public authority. It is evident that the Administrative tribunals while conducting merit reviews do not follow the strict rules of evidence and therefore the process is less formal that is being followed in courts. In this regard mention can be made of few administrative tribunals involv ed in the process of merit review. These are the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The fundamental principle of judicial review can be applied when the administrative tribunals abuse their powers by acting outside their jurisdictional limits. In this regard, the courts are vested with an authority to interfere with the decisions made by an administrative tribunal. However, the process of judicial review do not prevent the administrative bodies from making decisions, it prevents them from making any decision which is irrational and illegal[11]. Therefore, it can be rightly stated that the decision of an administrative tribunal can be interfered with if any illegality or irrationality is observed in the process. It was observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349[12] that the decision taken by the administrative tribunals by excludi ng the application of the principles of both common and statutory laws from the purview of judicial review. It was observed that the administrative tribunal refused to provide appropriate reasons for such exclusion of both common and statutory laws. Therefore, it was observed that further appeal was made to the Court of Justice and it was held that that the decision made by the administrative authority was illegal and irrational[13]. It is worth mentioning that the Courts are at the authority to set aside or quash an order if the decision taken is irrational or illegal. In Posner v Collector for Interstate Destitute Persons[14] it was held by the Court that the decision made by the administrative tribunal was outside its jurisdictional boundary and therefore was invalid. It is important on the part of the administrative authorities to provide appropriate reasons in regard to the decision taken by the administrative tribunals[15]. It is essential that the administrative authorities should provide appropriate justifications regarding the usage of common and statutory laws on which it relied upon in making decision. Therefore, it shall be easier for individuals to understand both the factual and legal conditions depicted in the decisions made by the administrative tribunals. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention that the process of judicial review has been applied to the day to day issues faced by the government authorities. However, such activities could be easily recognized by the courts in a short span of period. In this context, the traditional inherent jurisdiction applied by the procedure of judicial review by the administrative tribunals could be easily restricted. The Court of Justice was at the authority to question the application of law applied by the administrative bodies in making decision. If the administrative tribunals exercised their powers outside their jurisdictional boundaries set by the provisions of statutory law and common law in regard to natural justice then the Courts could recognize such boundaries[16]. The cases involving procedural challenges can be interfered by the Courts by setting aside the decision made by the tribunals by applying the formal procedures. It can be emphasized that there is an opportunity on the part of an aggrieved party to present an appeal which involves substantial question of law before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. In this regard, the appeal involving the question of law could be reviewed by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). However various intricacies may arose that whether the appellant has identified the involved question of law. In some cases when no question of law is identified then it can be established there is no jurisdiction. In addition, it can be stated that individuals with lack of legal knowledge would face great difficulty in identifying the hidden question of law. In this regard, the aggrieved party can present further appeal before the Court in order in order to get relief. In this regard, it can be emphasized that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) can provide various methods of alternative dispute resolution which includes- neutral-evaluation, conciliation and media tion. However, these methods of dispute resolution were considered to be less formal and therefore the decision made with the application of these methods cannot be relied upon[17]. The individuals relied on the decisions of the courts as the procedure was formal which included the application of both statutory and procedural laws[18]. Therefore it can be stated that there exists an interrelation between government administrative bodies and other independent authorities such as administrative tribunals and ombudsmen. However, in case the disputes are not resolved through the independent functionaries, the matter in dispute can be referred to the Courts. It is evident that in many countries the branch of administrative law is often treated as constitutional laws. It can be noted that from the very beginning the concept of administrative law is efficiently applied to the relationship between the citizens and the state[19]. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention that the branch of the Australian constitutional law effectively interacts with the application of administrative law in many ways. For instance, mention can be made about the principles of a Communist Party which requires the decision of an executive to act near the boundaries of constitutional powers which in most of the cases are subjected to judicial review. Therefore, in this regard, question may appear that to what extent the principles of administrative justice can be secured by the constitution by establishing the process of judicial review in relation to the decision made by the administrative tribunals. Modern scholars are of the opinion that individuals have the right to appeal to the Courts in order for the purpose of seeking judicial review of the decisions taken by the executive which adversely affected their rights[20]. The appellant shall have the right to full appeal after the declaration of the initial decision taken by the administrative body. Therefore, the parties to dispute are at the authority to have the material facts and merits to be determined by the application of the Courts[21]. This can be only done by the parties to dispute only if the matter related appears to be utmost importance to the concerned parties. Therefore, the Constitution of Australia is vested with the power to allocate the federal legislative, the executive and judicial functions to the Commonwealth Parliament, the federal executive and the High Court and lower courts of Australia respectively. In R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254[22] which is popularly known as the Boilermakers case was a landmark case in the history of Australia where the decision made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration were held to be unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia. It was observed that the Boilermakers Society of Australia is a union which did not obey the orders given by the Commonwealth Court in regard to an industrial dispute which arose between the Boilermakers and the Metal Trades Employers Association. It was observed that the Boilermakers presented an appeal before the High Court by challenging the orders as they found the decision made by the Commonwealth Court to be invalid and irrational. In this case, it was held by the High Court of Australia that the judicial power entrusted to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration cannot be vested in a tribunal which exercises non-judicial functions. The High Court of Australia in this regard made a series of consideration for the purpose of resolving issues which involves the exercise of judicial power. The view of the decision maker occupies the central in the determination of the issue[23]. However, the consequences that shall affect the interests of the individuals could only be determined by employing judicial power. In the perspective of modern authors the application of judicial control can be excluded from the matter involved it was based on the application of executive power. In this regard, it can be noted that in case of settling industrial disputes, the final determination of the dispute can be only finalized by the judiciary and not by the executive. However, some scholars were of the opinion that according to the principles of Australian Law, the important decisions which require the application of law must be decided by the Courts. According to contemporary authors, the decision taken by the administrative tribunal has been considered to be insufficient to provide relief to the parties to dispute[24]. Therefore, according to the perspective of modern scholars, the decisions involving judicial review should be left for the Courts to decide. However, under the Australian Law, the exact amount of judicial control which is necessary in deciding a particular matter is unclearly depicted[25]. The matters involving substantial consequences shall be considered by the Courts however; in case if any restrictions are imposed on the Courts then the ability of the Courts to reconsider the matter shall be objected on constitutional grounds. In Cf Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245[26] the High Court of Australia provided favorable decisions in regard to attempts of the administrative bodies in conferring judicial powers upon non-judicial authorities. In this case it was observed that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not vested with an authority to exercise judicial functions. It can be observed that in some cases the High Court of Australia held the decision of the administrative tribunals to be constitutional and rational. In Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs it was held by the Court that the administrative authorities have acted within the executive powers by detaining the aliens while an executive determination was pending on their part. In this case the Court was at the authority to hold the decision taken by the administrative authorities to be outside the executive powers because the aliens could be deprived of their rights and interests without the application of judicial decision. However, the importance of immigration application cannot be ignored as it requires judicial control. The importance of executive powers exercised on the part of the administrative authorities has been observed in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1[27]. According to the provisio ns of Section 75(v) of the Constitution of Australia the High Court is vested with original jurisdiction in matters involving writ of mandamus or injunction against an officer of Commonwealth. However modern jurists asserted that Section 75(v) do not provide any right to obtain mandamus or prohibition, it only provides with a jurisdiction. Most of the countries have adopted the principles of administrative law within their legal system. The Australian Constitution adopted the concept of administrative law and thereby applied innovative measures to uplift the accountability of the executive. With the development of the principles of common law and statutory laws in Australia in the past two decades there has been establishment of legislative and institutional framework as well for the purpose of providing administrative justice. In this regard, the application of administrative law has been implemented by the Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth), the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth) and the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth)[28]. In this regard, it can be mentioned that the fundamental concept of administrative law was concerned with the rights of individuals. However, the administrative tribunals failed in their part to provide appropriate relief to the parties in dispute. In the perspectives of modern scholars the individuals are vested with the right to seek judicial review of a decision given by the administrative tribunal or any other government authorities that would adversely affect their rights to justice. In this regard, the parties to dispute are vested with the right to present an appeal before the Court questioning the substantial grounds of judicial review. Some authors were of the view that in cases where an appeal arises from the decision made by a government official to an administrative tribunal; the need to conduct judicial review arises in this context[29]. Therefore, in case of issues of importance arising between parties to dispute the Court shall be at the authority to review the legality and merits of the decision given by the administrative tribunal that is being challenged. It has been argued that the abovementioned statements exist efficiently in the subject-matter of administrative law of Australia. However, it has been alread y explained that Section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution grants the High Court with a constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose of ensuring lawful conduct on the part of the Commonwealth officers. It is noteworthy to mention here that such constitutional jurisdiction cannot be overridden by any existing clause which seeks to separate the functions of the executive from the purview of judicial review. In addition, it can be stated that in the absence of Section 75(v) there exists no other constitutional mechanism which will ensure that the principles of common law and the provisions of administrative justice are not eroded by the acts of the Parliament[30]. In recent era, several attempts were made by the Federal government for the purpose of removing decisions involving immigration issues from the scope of judicial review. In this regard the Courts of Justice were heavily criticized from time to time for making decisions by depending upon the grounds of policy and material facts rather than the grounds involving strict legality merits. Therefore, amendments were introduced to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in Part 8 in order to provide restrictions to the ground available to the Federal Court for judicial review which includes- breach of natural justice, irrationality and unreasonableness. However, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill, 1998 initiated to replace Part 8 of the amendment with privative clause. In this regard, the Bill proposed that the jurisdictional power of the Federal Court shall be completely removed in reviewing the decisions taken by certain administrative tribunals[31]. Further the Bill prevented the intervention of the High Courts in matters in relation to the decision taken by the Federal Court. It is evident that administrative tribunals derive their powers from the legislative bodies for the purpose of adjudicating matters which are complex in nature and comprises of specialized areas. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the decisions and actions of the administrative tribunals are often challenged by the disputing parties due to the nature of the decision. In Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44[32] is a Canadian case study in which it was observed that the administrative tribunal defended its own decision by conducting the process of judicial review. It was observed in this case that the Ontario Power Generation sought judicial review regarding the decision of the Board as the decision was granted in favor of the Board. In this regard, the Ontario Power Generation challenged the decision of the tribunal by presenting an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, it was held that the decision of the administrative tribunal can be challenged before the higher authorities for further appeal. In the conclusion it can be stated that in practice the mechanisms of administrative law do not provide relief to the disputing parties efficiently and therefore the disputing parties in most of the cases seek relief from the Courts by ignoring the decision provided by the principles of administrative tribunals. References: Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs 110 ALR 97 Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44 Posner v Collector for Interstate Destitute Persons (1947) ALR 61 R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349 Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1 Almqvist, Jessica. "A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for International Criminal Justice." Leiden Journal of International Law 28.1 (2015): 91-112. Amoroso, Daniele. "Judicial Abdication in Foreign Affairs and the Effectiveness of International Law." Chinese Journal of International Law 14.1 (2015): 99-134. Asimow, Michael. "Five models of administrative adjudication." The American Journal of Comparative Law 63.1 (2015): 3-32. Bernatt, Maciej. "Transatlantic Perspective on Judicial Deference in Administrative Law." Colum. J. Eur. L. 22 (2015): 275. Bosland, Jason, and Jonathan Gill. "The principle of open justice and the judicial duty to give public reasons." Melb. UL Rev. 38 (2014): 482. Buck, Trevor, Richard Kirkham, and Brian Thompson. The ombudsman enterprise and administrative justice. Routledge, 2016. Bunjevac, Tin. "From individual judge to judicial bureaucracy: The emergence of judicial councils and the changing nature of judicial accountability in court administration." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 806. Busch, Jost-Dietrich. "Vi the administration of justice in the federal system of the federal republic of germany." A Comparative Study: 139. Bateman, Will, and Leighton McDonald. "The Normative Structure of Australian Administrative Law." Fed. L. Rev. 45 (2017): 153. Cane, Peter. "Records, Reasons and Rationality in Judicial Control of Administrative Power: England, the US and Australia." Israel Law Review 48.3 (2015): 309-328. Dalal, Seema. "Administrative law and judicial review of administrative action with a special emphasis on the writ of certiorari." Daly, Paul. "Best Practices in Administrative Decision-Making: Viewing the Copyright Board of Canada in a Comparative Light." (2016). Ebisui, Minawa, Sean Cooney, and Colin Fenwick. "1. Resolving individual labour disputes: A general introduction." Resolving Individual Labour Disputes: 1. Freckelton, Alan. "The chancing concept of'unreasonableness' in Australian administrative law." AIAL Forum. No. 78. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2014. Galligan, Brian, and FL Ted Morton. "Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights." Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights. Routledge, 2017. 27-50. Gardbaum, Stephen. "Separation of powers and the growth of judicial review in established democracies (or why has the model of legislative supremacy mostly been withdrawn from sale?)." The American Journal of Comparative Law 62.3 (2014): 613-640. Guglyuvatyy, Evgney, and Chris Evans. "Administrative approaches to tax dispute resolution: alternative perspectives from Australia and Russia." J. Comp. L. 10 (2015): 365. Hooper, Grant Robert. "Judicial Review and Proportionality: Making a Far-Reaching Difference to Administrative Law in Australia or a Misplaced and Injudicious Search for Administrative Justice?." (2017). Johnston, Peter, and Peter McNab. "The evolution of state adjudicative power as an alternative to state judicial or administrative power." AIAL Forum. No. 81. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2015. Kirkham, Richard, and Alexander Allt. "Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes: The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section." Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 38.2 (2016): 211-227. Mead, Joseph, and Nicholas A. Fromherz. "Choosing a Court to Review the Executive." (2015). Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges." Revista Forumul Judecatorilor (2014): 133. Preston, Brian J. "Characteristics of successful environmental courts and tribunals." Journal of Environmental law 26.3 (2014): 365-393. Price, Zachary S. "Law Enforcement as Political Question." Notre Dame L. Rev. 91 (2015): 1571. Scott, Katharine, and Tom Tabori. "Alternatives to Litigation in Public Law Disputes." Sutherland, Carolyn, and Joellen Riley. "Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in 2015." Journal of Industrial Relations 58.3 (2016): 388-401. Welch, Michael. "Economic man and diffused sovereignty: a critique of Australias asylum regime." Crime, Law and Social Change 61.1 (2014): 81-107.