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
For centuries the superior courts have wielded a judicial big stick labelled ‘jurisdictional error’ in order to control and supervise the activities of administrators and inferior tribunals; moreover the stick has been brandished in the face of parliaments which have indicated fairly clearly that they intended the particular inferior body to be free of judicial interference. The doctrine of review for jurisdictional error is well established; but there is widespread criticism of its operation. The distinction between findings of inferior bodies which are ‘collateral’ to the merits and thus reviewable and those which are not, a distinction which is basic to the doctrine, has been described as one of the ‘apparently meaningless categories’ of legal reference. Particularly effective and persistent criticism has been mounted by D. M. Gordon. In his view the distinction between jurisdictional facts and other facts cannot be maintained. He is completely opposed to any acceptance of the idea that the courts should be free to manipulate jurisdictional error to control the activities of inferior bodies on policy grounds alone; arbitrariness and uncertainty have no place in the law of judicial review.
King Lear, Act III, Sc. IV.
2 See de Smith, , Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1959), 266ff.Google Scholar; Rubinstein, , Jurisdiction and Illegality (1965) 85ff.Google Scholar; Benjafield, and Whitmore, , Principles of Australian Administrative Law (3rd ed. 1966) 242ffGoogle Scholar.
3 Stone, , Legal Systems and Lawyers' Reasonings (1964) 241ff.Google Scholar; 340. It is noteworthy, however, that Professor Stone has some doubts as to whether jurisdictional error is properly included in the suggested list of meaningless categories.
4 See particularly ‘ The Relation of Facts to Jurisdiction ’ (1929) 45 Law Quarterly Review 459; ‘ The Observance of Law as a Condition of Jurisdiction’ (1931) 47 Law Quarterly Review 386, 557; ‘Conditional or Contingent Jurisdictionof Tribunals’ (1960) 1 University ofBritish Columbia Law Review 185; ‘ Jurisdictional Fact: An Answer’(1966) 82 Law Quarterly Review 515.
5 Gordon has berated ‘ the professors ’ (in this case Professors Sawer and de Smith) for their failure to condemn the ‘ impure’ conception of jurisdiction; book review of Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1960) 76 Law Quarterly Review 306, 314.
6 On this point see Jaffe, , Judicial Control of Administrative Action (1965) 631ffGoogle Scholar.
7 Professor Stone has no doubt that this is a category of meaningless reference, op. cit. 340.
8 The circumstances in which these remedies may be availed of are discussed below.
9 See e.g. Salmond, , Jurisprudence (11th ed. 1957) 66ff.Google Scholar; Paton, , Jurisprudence (3rd ed. 1964) 175ff.Google Scholar; Cross, , Precedent in English Law (1961) 241ff.Google Scholar; Pound, , Jurisprudence (1959) v, 544ffGoogle Scholar. It is noteworthy that in the latter work the majority of footnote references are to modern works concerned with judicial review in the United States. Stone notes the need for further examination of the problem, op. cit. 340.
10 Dickinson, , Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of the Law (1927) 55Google Scholar. The author was, of course, referring to the difficulty in the context of judicial review.
11 Green, , Judge and Jury (1930) 270ff.Google Scholar, quoted by Jaffe, , Judicial Control of Administrative Action (1965) 547Google Scholar.
12 See e.g. Griffith, and Street, , Principles of Administrative Law (3rd ed. 1963) 239Google Scholar; Davis, , Administrative Law Treatise (1958) iv, 199ffGoogle Scholar.
13 The Australian Gas Light Co. v. The Valuer-General (1940) 40 S.R. (N.S.W.) 126.
14 Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 329.
15 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Walker [1963] N.Z.L.R. 339.
16 Griffiths v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd [1963J A.C. l.
17 Ex parte Tooth & Co. Ltd; Re Council of City of Sydney (1962) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 572.
18 N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications (1944) 322 U.S. Ill.
19 Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R. 93.
20 N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1956) 350 U.S. 264.
21 Punton v. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (No.2) [1964] 1 W.L.R.226.
22 See below.
23 These techniques are bedevilled by similar uncertainties to those which manifest themselves in relation to jurisdictional error and error of law; seegenerally, de Smith, , Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1959)Google Scholar ch. 6; Benjafield, and Whitmore, , Principles of Australian Adnlinistrative Law (3rd ed. 1966) 172ffGoogle Scholar.
24 Statute after statute will provide simply for review where ‘a question of law’ or a ‘ point of law’ is involved. England has‘ made it wholesale’ by providing in s. 9 of Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958 (Eng.) for review of tribunal decisions by the High Court on application by any party to the proceedings who is dissatisfied ‘ in point of law’. It would seem that legislators either do not realize or are not concerned that the scope of review afforded by such provisions is almost completely at the discretion of the courts. The trend has not escaped criticism: see Robson, , ‘Administrative Justice and Injustice: A Commentary on the Franks Report’ [1958] Public Law 12Google Scholar; Griffith, , ‘Tribunals and Inquiries’ (1959) 22 Modern Law Review 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 It will be immediately apparent to the reader that I am heavily indebted to Professors Davis and Jaffefor the material in this section. I hope that I have not misrepresented their views or misunderstood the basic approaches. If I have I can only plead indefence a long absence from the United States.
26 Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough (1920) 253 U.S. 287; Ng Fung Ho v. White (1922) 259 U.S. 276; Crowell v. Benson (1932) 285 U.S. 22.
27 See e.g. Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) 378 U.S. 184.
28 Administrative Law Treatise (1958) iv, 159ff.
29 Estep v. United States (1946) 327 U.S. 114. But see the Jacobellis case supra n. 27.
30 These are sections dealing with hearing procedure and the nature of the decision to be made by the agency itself or its subordinate hearing officers. A record comprising a transcript of testimony, exhibits and other papers is required to be kept and the decision, which must include a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons therefore, on all matters of fact, law or discretion, is part of the record. Review both on questions of law and questions of fact is thus greatly facilitated.
31 See Benjafield and Whitmore, op. cit. 242ff.
32 See Davis, op. cit. iv, ch. 28. As with the English and Australian cases it is difficult to perceive any high degree of consistency in dealing with privative clauses. Davis puts it that ‘The most important forces are the reactions of judges to reviewing or refraining from reviewing particular questions in particular cases ’.
33 United States ex reI. Accardi v. Shaughnessy (1954) 347 U.S. 260.
34 United States v. Pink (1942) 315 U.S. 203.
35 See Carlson v. Landon (1952) 342 U.S. 524; Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line (1958) 356 U.S. 309; Schilling v. Rogers (1960) 363 U.S. 666; Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern R. Co. (1963) 372 U.S. 658. Compare the approach of Davis, op. cit. iv, 80ff. with that of Berger, , ‘Administrative Arbitrarinessand Judicial Review’ (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Jaffe, op. cit. 551, 595.
37 Brown, , ‘Fact and Law in Judicial Review’ (1943) 56 Harvard Law Review 899CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 903.
38 Traced back to I.C.C. v. Louisville & N.R.R. (1913) 227 U.S. 88.
39 Consolidated Edison CO. v. N.L.R.B. (1938) 305 U.S. 197, 229.
40 Op. cit. iv, 118. Professor Jaffe states that ‘The law demands evidence sufficient to enable a mind to find the legally required fact by reasoning from that evidence’. Op. cit. 596.
41 Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B. (1951) 340 U.S. 474.
42 Ibid. 488.
43 Ibid.
44 Administrative Procedure Act 1946, S. 10 (e)—subject to the qualifying clause.
45 See generally Davis, , Administrative Law Treatise iv, (1958)Google Scholar ch. 30; Jaffe, , Judicial Control of Administrative Action (1965)Google Scholar ch. 14; Davis, , ‘Judicial Control of Administrative Action: A Review’ (1966) 66 Columbia Law Review 635Google Scholar. 460p. cit. 548.
47 The following illustration brings the analysis down to earth. A finding that an employee, while at work, has been intentionally hit on the head by a fellow employee,is a finding of fact. But if it is asserted that the injury arose out of the employment and is compensable under a workers' compensationstatute, this is a conclusion of law.
48 Op. cit. 551. Professor Jaffe might have called in aid the words of Brandeis, J.: ‘When the words of a written instrument are used in their ordinary meaning, their construction presents a question solely of law’. Great Northern Railway v. Merchants Elevator Co. (1922) 259Google Scholar U.S. 285, 291. Can ‘ construction’ be distinguished from the situation here?
49 Op. cit. 554.
50 Op. cit. 572. It is noted that this may appear to be ‘ a crashing platitude or a resounding rationalization for results otherwise determined’ but nevertheless it is insisted that it is a valuable initial premise.
51 On the question of expertise and the law-fact distinction see Korn, , ‘Law, Fact,and Science in the Courts’ (1966) 66 Columbia Law Review 1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Op. cit. 586ff.
53 It has been remarked that ‘American law about invalidating action that is unreasonable or arbitrar seems to be less developed’ than English law: Wade, , ‘Anglo-American Administrative Law: Some Reflections’ (1965) 81 Law Quarterly Review 357Google Scholar, 379.
54 See e.g. Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles (1944) 321 U.S. 144; Office Employes v. N.L.R.B. (1957) 353 U.S. 313; Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B. (1947) 330 U.S.485; F.T.C. v. Anheuser-Busch (1960) 363 U.S. 536; F.T.C. v. Mandel Bros (1959) 359 U.S. 385; Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) 378 U.S. 184; Good Humor Corp. v. McGoldrick (1943) 46 N.E. 2d. 881; Red Top Brewing Co. v. Bowers (1955) 125 N.E. 2d. 188.
55 (1944) 322 U.S. 111.
56 Op. cit. 560, 575.
57 Administrative Law Treatise (1958) iv, 192.
58 Limitations of space prevent detailed discussion of this line of cases. Professor Davis includes: Dobson v. Commissioner (1943) 320 U.S. 489; Swift &Co. v. United States (1942) 316 U.S. 216; Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co. (1957) 353 U.S. 151; Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States (1962) 371 U.S. 115; Commissioner v. Duberstein (1960) 363 U.S. 278.
59 Op. cit. 201.
60 Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States (1939) 307 U.S. 125.
61 Dobson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1943) 320 U.S. 489.
62 Ibid. 498-499.
63 He would prefer substitution of the words ‘ judicial question ’ and ‘ administrative question’ for the words ‘ law’ and‘ fact’ because such terminology would focus attention on practical needs rather than on a relatively sterile analysis of words ’. Op. cit. 194. This suggestion might be of value in Australian jurisdictions where thoroughgoing reform of the system [sic] of administrative law is contemplated.
64 Ibid. 209.
65 Ibid. 207ff.
66 Ibid. 211.
67 Ibid. 193.
68 Ibid. 229.
69 [1915] A.C. 922, 932.
70 (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47, 51.
71 Griffiths v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd [1963J A.C. 1, 15.
72 See e.g. per Gresson, P. in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Walker [1963] N.Z.L.R. 339, 353ff.Google Scholar; per Latham, C.J. in Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R. 93Google Scholar, 97; per Rich, A.C.J. in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150Google Scholar, 154.
73 See e.g. In re Butler [1939] 1 K.B. 570; Church v. Inclosure Commissioners (1862)11 C.B. (N.S.) 664; Gould v. Minister ofNational Insurance [1951] 1 K.B. 731; Ex parte Tooth & Co. Ltd; Re Council of City of Sydney (1962) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 572; Hoddinott v. Newton Chambers & Co. Ltd [1901] A.C. 49; Reg. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Burpitt [1957] 2 Q.B. 584.
74 [1956] A.C. 14, 33ff.
75 (1940) 40 S.R. (N.S.W.) 126.
76 Ibid. 137.
77 Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14, 31, 33.
78 Ibid. 30.
79 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Lysaght [1928] A.C. 234; Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R. 93.
80 Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14, 30; Griffiths v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd [1963] A.C. 1.
81 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150; N.S. W. Associated Blue-Metal Quarries Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 94 C.L.R. 509.
82 Bracegirdle v. Oxley [1947] K.B. 349.
83 Atkinson v. Bettison [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1127.
84 In re Bowman [1932] 2 K.B. 621; Daly v. ElstreeR.D.C. [1948] 2 All E.R. 13.
85 In re Bainbridge [1939] 1 K.B. 500.
86 See cases cited above. Also see Bracegirdle v. Oxley [1947] 1 K.B. 349; Gould v. Minister ofNational Insurance [1951] 1 K.B. 731; British Launderers Research Association v. Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 K.B. 462; D.P.P. v. Head [1958] 2 W.L.R. 617.
87 (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47.
88 [1947] K.B. 349, 358.
89 This statement needs to be qualified. Infra.
90 (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150.
91 Ibid. 154.
92 Ibid. 155, 160.
93 (1940) 40 S.R. (N.S.W.) 126, 138.
94 See also Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R. 93, 103; Federal Comlnissioner ofTaxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150,155; Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 328.
95 [1956] A.C. 14, 29.
96 Ibid.
97 Griffiths v. J.P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd [1963] A.C. 1, 19. See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150, 155; Great Western Railway Co. v. Bater [1922] 2 A.C. 1, 12; Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; Walton v. Holland [1963] N.Z.L.R.729; Armah v. Government of Ghana [1966] 3 All E.R. 177; cf. Reg. v. District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 341.
98 Smith v. General Motor Cab Co. [1911] A.C. 188; The Australian Gas Light Co. v. Valuer-General (1940) 40 S.R. (N.S.W.) 126, 138; British Launderers' Research Association v. Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 K.B. 462,471; American Thread Co. v. Joyce (1913) 108 L.T. 353; Ex parte Parker; Re Brotherson (1957)57 S.R. (N.S.W.) 326.
99 Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. [1955] A.C. 370; Wheat v. E.Lacon & Co. Ltd [1966] 2. W.L.R. 581.
1 Green v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1966] 3 All E.R. 942.
2 Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1966) 40 A.L.I.R. 328.
3 Supra. The usual remedy has been mandamus-issued on the basis that there has been ‘ a failure to hear and determine according to law’; but now the declaratory judgment appears to be supplanting mandamus.
4 See e.g. John East Iron Works Ltd v. Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan [1949] 3 D.L.R. 51; Commissioner of Stamp Duties v. Pearse (1951) 84 C.L.R. 490; R. v. Agricultural Land Tribunal for Wales; Ex parte Davies [1953] 1 W.L.R. 722; R. v. Agricultural Land Tribunal; Ex parte Bracey [1960] 1 W.L.R. 911; Ex parte Hopkins; Re Cronin (1956) 57 S.R. (N.S.W.) 554.
5 [1959] A.C. 663, 693.
6 Ward v. Williams (1955) 92 C.L.R. 496; And see Norris v. Brown (1966) 84 W.N. (Pt 1) (N.S.W.) 393.
7 Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14; R. v. Vestry of St Pancras (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 371; Hammond v. Hutt Valley and Bays Metropolitan Milk Board [1958] N.Z.L.R.720; Lynn v. Ringwood [1964] N.S.W.R. 199; Reg. v. The District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337.
8 Maurice v. London County Council [1964] 1 All E.R. 779. Anisninee
9 (1963) 37 A.L.J.R. 182.
10 Ibid. 187.
11 Ibid. 190.
12 Again, the approach of Professor Jaffe is preferred.
13 Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14, 39.
14 See Benjafield, and Whitmore, , Principles of Australian Administrative Law (3rd ed. 1966) 185ffGoogle Scholar.
15 Section 66 (4).
16 And, in any event, the High Court could review for error of law on the face of the record by means of certiorari.
17 For the historical background see Sawer, ‘Error of Law on the Face of an Administrative Record’ (1954-1956) 3 Annual Law Review 24Google Scholar, 26. Professor Sawer considered the development to be ‘unfortunate’ as it might obfuscate the need for legislative action to provide for proper judicial review of administrative discretionary power.
18 See R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 A.C. 128; and Sawer, ibid. passim.
19 See e.g. R. v. Dunn [1840] 12 A. & E. 599.
20 R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1951] 1 K.B. 711.
21 E.g. R. v. Birmingham Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Road Haulage Executive [1952] 2 All E.R. 100; R. v. Agricultural Land Tribunal; Ex parteDavies [1953] 1 W.L.R. 722; Reg. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Gilmore [1957] 1 Q.B. 574; Davies v. Price [1958] 1 W.L.R. 434; Baldwin & Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663; R. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government; Ex parte Chichester R.D.C. [1960] 1 W.L.R. 587; R. v. Patents Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Swift and Co. [1962] 1 All E.R. 610; R. v. Essex Quarter Sessions; Ex parte Thomas [1966] 1 All E.R. 353.
22 E.g. R. v. Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Henry Berry & Co. (Australasia) Ltd [1955] V.L.R. 156; Ex parte Hopkins; Re Cronin (1956) 57 S.R. (N.S.W.) 554; Ex parte Crothers; Re Anderson (1961) 78 W.N. (N.S.W.) 316; The Queen v. Tennant; Ex parte Woods [1962] Qd R. 241; Ex parte Tooth & Co. Ltd; Re Council of City of Sydney (1962) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 572.
23 Reg. v. District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337.
24 In some cases the courts have shown themselves to be very conscious of the scope of the remedy and have sought to avoid its full application; See e.g. Ex parte Crothers; Re Anderson (1961) 78 W.N. (N.S.W.) 316; The Queen v. Tennant; Ex parte Woods [1962] Qd R. 241.
25 See Benjafield and Whitmore, op. cit. 200ff.; de Smith, , Judicial Reyiew of Administrative Action (1959)Google Scholar ch. 9.
26 Thus where the error complained of is an abuse of discretion, it has been held that such error must appear on the record to attract certiorari: R. v. Paddington & St Marylebone Rent Tribunal; Ex parte Kendal Hotels [1947] 1 All E.R. 448; R. v. Agricultural Land Tribunal; Ex parte Bracey [1960] 1 W.L.R. 911. The way round these decisions is to hold that the error amounts to excess ofjurisdiction: see de Smith, op. cit. 210, and Baldwin & Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663.
27 See generally de Smith, op. cit. 3OOff.
28 [1952] 1 K.B. 338, 352.
29 Baldwin & Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663, 690.
30 See other opinions in Baldwin & Francis Ltd v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959] A.C. 663 and Reg. v. District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 337, 342.
31 See Benjafield and Whitmore, op. cit. 207ff.; de Smith, op. cit. ch. 9.
32 See Benjafield and Whitmore, op. cit. 211ff.; de Smith, op. cit. ch. 12.
33 See Campbell and Whitmore, Freedom in Australia (1966) 70ff.
34 Despite some doubts expressed as to whether this really was jurisdictional error.
35 Armah v. Government of Ghana [1966] 3 All E.R. 177, 202.
36 But not the only use—see Benjafield and Whitmore, op. cit. 218ff.
37 See e.g. Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; Hawick v. Plegg (1958) 75 W.N. (N.S.W.) 255; Baker v. Gough (1962) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 1263; Schweikert v. Burnell (1963) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 1227; Nagle v. Feilden [1966] 1 All E.R. 689.
38 New South Wales stood outside the mainstream of development because of certain restrictive decisions of the courts. Amendments to s. 10 of the Equity Act, 1901-1965 (N.S.W.) introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,1965 (N.S.W.) have made the declaratory judgment fully available in New South Wales.
39 See e.g. Hanson v. Radcliffe U.D.C. [1922] 2 Ch. 490; Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation [1955] 1 Ch. 210; Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; Patton v. Attorney-General [1947] V.L.R. 257; Hall & Co. Ltd v. Shoreham-by-Sea U.D.C. [1964] 1 W.L.R. 240; Robinson v. Lloyd [1962] W.A.R.168.
40 Cooper v. Wilson [1937] 2 K.B. 309; Hoggard v. Worsborough U.D.C. [1962]2 Q.B. 93; Delta Properties Pty Ltd v. Brisbane City Council (1955) 95 C.L.R. 11; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40.
41 (1945) 71 C.L.R. 545.
42 See e.g. Pyx Granite Co. Ltd v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1960] A.C. 260; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40; Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Co. Ltd v. Attorney-General (Qld) (1961) 106 C.L.R. 48; Robinson v. Lloyd [1962] W.A.R.168.
43 See e.g. per Denning, L.J. in Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2Google Scholar Q.B. 329, 346; Barnard v. National Dock LabQur Board [1953] 2 Q.D. 18, 41; per Lord, Merriman in Taylor v. National Assistance Board [1956] P. 470Google Scholar, 494; per Upjohn, L.J. inPunton v. Ministry ofPensions and National Insurance [1963] 1Google Scholar W.L.R. 186, 192ff.
44 The statutory phrase.
45 Punton v. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance [1963] 1 W.L.R. 186.
46 [1963] 2 All E.R. 693.
47 Punton v. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (No.2) [1964] 1 W.L.R.226. The Court found it unnecessary to decide this; it merely affirmed the decision of Phillimore J.
48 [1897] A.C. 615. And see Argoson Finance Co. Ltd v. Oxby [1964] 1 All E.R. 791 .
49 [1955] 1 Q.B. 221, 228.
50 Ibid. 227.
51 And concurred in by'Danckwerts and Davies L.IJ.
52 This time constituted by Lord Denning and Danckwerts and Salmon L.Jl.
53 Munnich v. Godstone R.D.C. [1966] 1 W.L.R. 427.
54 E.g. see Gift Duty Assessment Act 1941-1963 (Cth) SSe 32 (7.), 33 (9.); Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941-1966 (Cth) s. 40 (5.); Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1966 (Cth) s. 196; Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914-1966 (Cth) SSe 25 (7.), 26 (9.); Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic.) s. 32; Land Tax Act, 1936-1966 (S.A.) s. 52 (7); Land Tax Assessment Act, 1907-1965 (W.A.) s. 48 (4); Land and Income Taxation Act 1910 (Tas.)s.149.
55 E.g. see Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 (Cth) s. 91; Trade Practices Act 1965-1966 (Cth) s. 63; Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1966 (N.S.W.) s. 37 (4);Justices Act, 1902-1966 (N.S.W.) s. 101 (1); Workers Compensation Act 1958 (Vic.) s. 56 (3); The Land Acts, 1962-1967 (Qld) s. 45 (1); The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, 1961-1964 (Qld) s. 34 (1); Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1966 (W.A.)s. 29 (9); Justices Act 1959 (Tas.) s. 123 (1).
56 E.g. in New South Wales appeals to the Local Government Boards dealing with subdivisions and buildings are deemed to be submissions to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1902 (N.S.W.). This attracts review for error of law by the Land and Valuation Court.
57 Sawer, , Ombudsman (1964) 41Google Scholar, and passim.