No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
In the exercise of discretionary power there is no general duty to give reasons in the absence of a statutory requirement. This common law rule may be traced in part to a line of cases which.stand for the proposition that where the discretionary power of the administrator is conclusive as to the existence of the grounds for its exercise, the courts cannot scrutinise the reasons—any errors are within jurisdiction. For example in Allcroft v Lord Bishop of London the respondents argued that the reasons which the Bishop was required by the statute to state, disclosed irrelevant considerations. The House of Lords rejected an application for mandamus.
1 R v Gaming Board for Great Britain; Ex parte Benaim & Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417. Contrast cases where the decision is subject to an appeal — Pettitt v Dunklev [1971] l NSWLR 376; Giris Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 119 CLR 365; Taylor v Public Service Board[1975] 2 NSWR 278; Hurt v Rossall (1982) 43 ALR 252.
2 [1891] AC 666.
3 Ibid 678.
4 [1947] 1 DLR 501
5 (1811) 13 East 419; 104 ER 433.
6 R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338; R v Gaming Board of Great Britain; Ex parte Benaim & Khaida [1970]2 QB 417; Taylor v Public Service Board [1975] 2 NSWLR 278; Jet 60 Minute Cleaners Ltd v Brownette [1982] ACLD 590.
7 Akehurst, M, “Statements of Reasons for Judicial and Administrative Decisions” (1970) 33 Mod L Rev 154CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flick, G A, “Administrative Adjudications and the Dutv to Give Reasons —A Search for Criteria” [1978] Public Law 16Google Scholar; S Taylor, GD, “Judicial Review of Improper Purposes and Irrelevant Considerations” (1976) 35 Cambridge LJ 272Google Scholar; S Taylor, GD, “Administrative Review: The Cuckoo Lays Another Egg” (1978)Google Scholar (unpublished paper delivered to the Royal Institute of Public Administration, Canberra, 29 August 1978); Churches, S, “Natural Justice and Executive Discretion in Australia” [1980] Public Law 397.Google Scholar
8 [1968] AC 997; and see Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979) 53 ALJR 478; J F Garner, “Administrative Law—A Step Forward?” ( I 968) 31 Mod L Rev 446; H Wade, “The Myth of Unfettered Discretion” (1968) 84 LQR 166. See also Glenvil1 Homes P(v Ltd v Builders licensing Board (1983) 4 ALO 398 and Blackburn J in Sordini v Wilcox (Federal Court of Australia, 7 April 1983, unreported decision of the Full Court).
9 Akehurst, supra n 7, 160 discussing Pure Spring Co Ltd v Minister of National Revenue [1947] 1 DLR 501. Contrast with Minister of National Revenue v Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd [1947] AC 109 in which the Privy Council declined to accept argument that an undisclosed report justified a ministerial determination and overturned the determination on the basis that the facts shown in the evidence were insufficient to support it.
10 Eg Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]AC 997, I 006-1007, 1032-1033, 1053-1054.
11 [1951] 1 KB 711.
12 [1981] 3 WLR 640.
13 Ibid 648-649.
14 (1982) 4 ALD 358.
15 Contrast the dissenting judgment of Lord Denning MR in Padfield. supra n 1O (refusal to supply reasons gives rise to the implication that there has been an abuse of power) with Jet 60 Minute Cleaners v Brownette [1982] ACLD 590.
16 Merchandise Transport Ltd v British Transport Commission [1962] 2 QB 173, 193.
17 G A Flick, Natural Justice-Principles and Practical Application (1979) Ch 3.
18 Franks Report (Cmnd No 218, I 957l.
19 Ibid para 35 I.
20 Eg The Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI. XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Aust TS 1981 No 28.
21 Taylor, “Administrative Review ... “, supra n 7.
22 Ibid 1.
23 (l978) 1 ALD 183.
24 (1978) 20 ALR 323.
25 Taylor, “Administrative Review ... “, supra n 7, relied on three Australian cases: Re Palmer and Minister for the Capital Territory (1978) 1 ALD 183; Re Salazar-Arbelaez and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 18 ALR 36; Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 333.
26 See Pearce, D C. Administrative Law Service (1979) 5003-5012.Google Scholar
27 Cf Guidelines to Freedom of Information (1982) FOI Memorandum No 32, s 26 Notices. Public Service Board Circular 1982/3 of 26 May 1982.
28 Toy Centre Agencies Pty Ltd v Spencer (1983) 46 ALR 351 in which Lockhart J spoke of having to give directions to “flush out the true decision maker and the reasons upon which he relied when making his decision” (at 361).
29 These amendments picked up the more serious weaknesses noted by Taylor, supra n 7.
30 (l983) 46 ALR 351, see below pp 166-167.
31 (1979) 3 ALD 383.
32 lbid 400.
33 Commonwealth of Australia v Duncan (1982) 44 ALR 249.
34 Eg Ates v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, 3 March 1983, unreported decision of Smithers J). See (1983) 5 ALN No 51 and Toy Centre Agencies Pty Ltd v Spencer (1983) 46 ALR 351.
35 Explanatory Memorandum, supra n 26, para 28, citing Re Palmer and Minister for the Capital Territory (1978) 1 ALD 183, 194.
36 Re Palmer (l978) 1 ALD 183,193.
37 Ibid.
38 (1980) 3 ALD 225, 231.
39 Eg Barbaro v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1982) 46 ALR 123. This issue was dealt with in papers presented at the 1981 Seminar, “The Choice between Judicial and Administrative Tribunals”, see Mr Justice MD Kirby, “Administrative Review: Beyond the Frontier marked 'Policy-Laywers Keep Out'” (1981) 12 Fed L Rev 121.
40 (1981) 3 ALD 153.
41 Duffy, Hamblin v (1981) 3 ALO 153, 154-155.Google Scholar
42 lbid 156.
43 Eg Flick, supra n 7.
44 (1983) 48 ALR 241.
45 [1968] AC 997.
46 (1981) 3 ALO 153, 154-155.
47 (1981) 38 ALR 363, 370-371 per Deane J.
48 (1981) 39 ALR 186, 189.
49 (1983) 46 ALR 351.
50 Ibid 359.
51 Federal Court of Australia, 7 April 1983. unreported decision of the Full Court.
52 lbid 10.
53 Ibid 11.
54 (1977) 14 ALR 1, 29.
55 Federal Court of Australia, 3 March 1983, unreported decision of Smithers J.
56 (1983) 46 ALR 379, 386-387.
57 Sean Investments Pty Ltd v Mackellar (1981) 38 ALR 363, 374 per Deane J, and see the Full Court judgment (1982) 42 ALR 676, esp Franki J.
58 (1983) 46 ALR 379, 398.
59 Federal Court of Australia, 7 April 1983, unreported decision of the Full Court.
60 (1982) 44 A.LR 249.
61 Supra n 59, 26-27.
62 (1936) 55 CLR 499.
63 Supra n 59, 27-28.
64 lbid 29-30.
65 (1982) 4 ALD 156, 164-165.
66 Edwards v Bairstow [1956]AC 14.
67 Toy Centre Agencies Pty Ltd v Spencer (1983) 46 ALR 351. 359 per Lockhart J.
68 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, Parl Paper No 144/1971.
69 FOI Act s 61.
70 Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 21 ALR 505; Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 32 ALR 485 and see Freedom of Information—Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and Aspects of the Archives Bill 1978. Par! Paper No 272/1979; Directions for Change —Review of New South Wales Government Administration, Interim Report ( 1977) and see Model Bill in Further Report Unfinished Agenda (1982), 177.
71 These views are put forcefully in Towards Open Government —Committee on Official Information, General Report (1980) NZGPS.
72 S 27 AAT Act; s 3(4) Judicial Review Act. Re McHa11an v Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 18 ALR 154, 157.
73 FOI Acts 62 see below,p 174.
74 Bayne, P., “Exemptions Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982” (1983) 14 FL Rev 67.Google Scholar
75 See the concept of “public interest” put forward in Guidelines to Freedom of Information (1982), FOI Memorandum No 27 paras 13 et seq.
76 But see remarks of Ellicott J in Haj-Ismail v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 516,527 and Hammond v Commonwealth (1982) 56 ALJR 767.
77 This must result from the direction in FOi Memorandum No 27, supra n 75.
78 Guidelines to Freedom of Information (1982), FOI Memorandum No 32 para 10.
79 Ibid para 2 and see paras 3 and 4.
80 Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1973] 1 All ER I 83; Barton v Licensing Control Commission [1982] 1 NZLR 31; R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; Ex parte International Sporting Club (London) Ltd [1981] 3 WLR 640.
81 Professor H WR Wade, “Law, Opinion and Administration” ( 1962) 78 LQR 188 and see Wade Constitutional Fundamentals (1980) (Hamlyn Lectures).
82 Bath, V, “The Judicial Libertine—Jurisdictional and Non-Jurisdictional Error of Law in Australia” (1982) 13 FL Rev 13.Google Scholar
83 Sean Investments v Mackellar (1981) 38 ALR 363, 370-371 and cases discussed above pp 166-167. DC Pearce, “Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions-The Need for Restraint” (1981) 12 Fed L Rev 167, 172-173.