Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T22:54:04.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calvin v. Carr and Others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Jane Stapleton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 306 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1979) 22 A.L.R. 417; (1979) 53 A.L.J.R. 471. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhome, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Scarman.

2 Calvin v. Carr [1977] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 308. Equity Division; Rath J,

3 (1979) 22 A.L.R. 417, 425.

4 The most recent commentaries are Sykes, Lanham, and Tracey, General Principles of Administrative Law (1979) Ch. 28Google Scholar; Whitmore, and Aronson, Review of Administrative Action (1978) 12-15, 133-142.Google Scholar

5 E.g. Wade, “Unlawful Administrative Action: Void or Voidable ?” (1967) 83 L.Q.R. 499Google Scholar, (1968) 84 L.Q.R. 95; Clark, “Natural Justice: Substance and Shadow” [1975] Public Law 27Google Scholar; Akehurst, “Void or Voidable? Natural Justice and Unnatural Meanings” (1968) 31 Modern Law Review 2, 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wade, Administrative Law (4th ed. 1977) 296-301Google Scholar.

6 Nor is any distinction made in the major cases supporting the “void” view: Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40, 79 per Lord Reid. See also Forbes v. New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd (1979) 25 A.L.R. 1.

7 Wade, “Unlawful Administrative Action: Void or Voidable” (1967) 83 L.Q.R. 499.Google Scholar

8 Id. 510.

9 A court may choose not to exercise its discretion on various grounds e.g. because the applicant has waived the breach, delayed bringing an action or because no injustice would be suffered by allowing the decision to stand. For similar reasoning see de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1973) 132; Whitmore and Aronson, op. cit. 14-15, 136; Hounslow L.B.C. v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] Ch. 233, 259 per Megarry J. Such an analysis has recently found approval in the High Court: Forbes v. New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd (1979) 25 A.L.R. 1.

10 (1976) 83 L.Q.R. 499, 525.

11 Id. 516.

12 Id. 511.

13 Sykes, Lanham and Tracey, op. cit. 233-235.

14 (1967) 83 L.Q.R. 499, 517.

15 IbId.

16 Wade, Administrative Law (4th ed. 1977) 300Google Scholar; In a note, (1974) 90 L.Q.R. 154, 155 Wade gives the following example: “If in Ridge v. Baldwin ... the order for the chief constable's dismissal had stated that it was because he had red hair, he would still have had to go to the court to recover his office effectively.”

17 On the point of ultra vires decisions by bodies ''with no vestige of legal authority” compare de Smith, op. cit. 377, 342.

18 Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] 2 A.C. 299.

19 Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [1961] A.C. 945, where the hearing rule was breached: Australian Workers' Union v. Bowen (No. 2) (1948) 77 C.L.R. 601, breach of the no bias rule.

20 Meyers v. Casey (1913) 17 C.L.R. 90. In this regard see also Re Brian Lawlor Automative Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (N.S.W.) The Australian Adminisrative Law Service 1 A.L.D. 167, 180.

21 M. Vasudevan Pillai v. City Council of Singapore [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1278.

22 Australian Workers' Union v. Bowen (No. 2) (1948) 77 C.L.R. 601; Twist v. Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 12 A.L.R. 379.

23 Calvin v. Carr (1979) 22 A.L.R. 417, 428-429.

24 Id. 428.

25 See Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [1961] A.C. 945, 956.

26 Calvin v. Carr (1979) 22 A.L.R. 417,429.

27 IbId.

28 Twist v. Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 12 A.L.R. 379, 388: approved by the Privy Council in Calvin v. Carr 430.

29 (1979) 22 A.L.R. 417,432.

30 IbId.

31 Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [1961] A.C. 945.

32 Wade, Administrative Law (4th ed. 1977) 299.Google Scholar

33 Viro v. R. (1978) 18 A.L.R. 257.