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: 01 January 2025
It is frequently said that Australian administrative law does not have, and cannot accommodate, a doctrine of deference. These statements, from judges and commentators, tend to cite the High Court's decision in Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission as authority. In that case, the High Court of Australia indicated that Australia's strict separation of powers, as manifested by the legality/merits distinction, does not allow courts to defer to administrative bodies in determining the meaning of ambiguous statutory provisions. Since Enfield, there have been considerable developments in the application, and theorisation, of deference across the common law world. This article examines developments in the UK and Canada, and argues that they show that there is no single ‘doctrine’ of deference – deference is applied in administrative law in a range of ways. I argue that some of the ways in which Canadian and UK courts apply deference are not dissimilar from the principles Australian courts already apply in reviewing executive action. I argue that Australian law may benefit from greater attention to, and wider application of, these deferential principles, in order to curb judicial intrusion into administrative discretion.
My thanks to Lisa Burton Crawford, Matthew Groves, Caroline Henckels and the journal's reviewers for their helpful comments, suggestions and discussions.
1 (2000) 199 CLR 135.
2 (2000) 199 CLR 135, 153–4 [44] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) (‘Enfield’).
3 (2013) 249 CLR 332 (‘Li’).
4 See, eg, Chris Wheeler, ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action: An Administrative Decision-Maker's Perspective’ (Paper presented at Australian Institute of Administrative Law Conference, Brisbane, 22 July 2016).
5 467 US 837 (1984) (‘Chevron’).
6 Matthew, Lewans, Administrative Law and Judicial Deference (Hart Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar 94 citing James, B Thayer, ‘Constitutionality of Legislation: The Precise Question for a Court’ (1884) 38 Nation 314, 315Google Scholar.
7 James, B Thayer, ‘The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law’ (1893) 7 Harvard Law Review 129Google Scholar.
8 Henry, Monaghan, ‘Marbury and the Administrative State’ (1983) 83 Columbia Law Review 1, 7Google Scholar.
9 1 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).
10 Thayer, ‘The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law’, above n 7, 135.
11 Ibid; Richard, A Posner, ‘The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint’ (2012) 100 California Law Review 519, 524–5Google Scholar.
12 Lewans, above n 6, 101–34.
13 Reuel, E Schiller, ‘The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law’ (2007) 106 Michigan Law Review 399Google Scholar, 413–21, 433–4.
14 Adrian, Vermeule, Mechanisms of Democracy: Institutional Design Writ Small (Oxford University Press, 2007) 162Google Scholar.
15 See, eg, Northern Pacific Railway Co v Solum, 247 US 477, 482–4 (Brandeis J) (1918); Railroad Commission of Texas v Rowan & Nichols Oil Co, 311 US 570, 573, 575 (Frankfurter J) (1941) (‘Rowan’).
16 See, eg, Federal Trade Commission v Cement Institute, 333 US 683, 720 (Black J) (1948); National Labor Relations Board v Hearst Publications Inc, 322 US 111, 130–2 (Rutledge J) (1944). See generally Schiller, ‘The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law’, above n 13.
17 David, Dyzenhaus, ‘Formalism's Hollow Victory’ [2002] New Zealand Law Review 525, 536Google Scholar; Peter, Cane, Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 5Google Scholar.
18 Cane, above n 17, 29–35.
19 Ibid 209.
20 See further K M, Hayne, ‘Deference—An Australian Perspective’ [2011] Public Law 75Google Scholar, 80–3.
21 See United States v Morgan, 313 US 409 (1941); Rowan, 311 US 570 (1941). See generally Schiller, above n 13, ‘The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law’, 430–8.
22 Reuel, E Schiller, ‘Reining in the Administrative State: World War II and the Decline of Expert Administration’ in Daniel, R Ernst and Victor, Jew (eds) Total War and the Law (Praeger, 2002) 185Google Scholar; Morton, J Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 1992) 213–46Google Scholar.
23 Richard, J Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise (Wolters Kluwer, 5th ed, 2010) vol 1, 155Google Scholar.
24 Kenneth, Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (KC Davis, 2nd ed, 1984) vol 5, 370Google Scholar.
25 91 Stat 685.
26 Natural Resources Defense Council v Gorsuch, 685 F 2d 718, 723–6 (DC Cir, 1982).
27 Chevron, 467 US 837, 843 (1984).
28 Ibid 843–4.
29 Ibid 863.
30 Ibid 865.
31 Ibid.
32 Cf United States v Mead Corp, 533 US 218 (2001) and Christensen v Harris County, 529 US 576 (2000).
33 135 S Ct 2480 (2015).
34 26 USC § 36B(b), (c).
35 Pub L No 111–148, 124 Stat 119.
36 King v Burwell, 135 S Ct 2491 (Roberts CJ) (2015). Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagen JJ joined Roberts CJ's opinion.
37 Ibid 2489.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid 2507 (Scalia J).
40 Skidmore Swift & Co, 323 US 134 (1944) (‘Skidmore’).
41 Bowles, Price Administrator v Seminole Rock and Sand Co, 325 US 410 (1945) (‘Seminole Rock’).
42 Auer v Robbins, 519 US 452 (1997) (‘Auer’).
43 Ibid 461.
44 5 USC (2017).
45 See generally Jamie, A Yavelberg, ‘The Revival of Skidmore v Swift: Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations After EEOC v Aramco’ (1992) 42 Duke Law Journal 166Google Scholar; Peter, L Strauss, ‘Deference Is Too Confusing—Let's Call Them “Chevron Space” and “Skidmore Weight”‘(2012) 112 Columbia Law Review 1143Google Scholar.
46 Paul, Daly, A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law: Basis, Application and Scope (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 7Google Scholar–8.
47 See Strauss, above n 45; Pierce, above n 23, 178–88.
48 See, eg, Lewans, above n 6.
49 Jack, M Beerman, ‘End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should Be Overruled’ (2010) 42 Connecticut Law Review 779, 783Google Scholar. A recent study found differences in judges’ application of Chevron deference, depending on the judges’ political preferences, with liberal judges less likely to apply Chevron deference in reviewing conservative agency interpretations: Kent H Barnett, Cristina L Boyd and Christopher J Walker, ‘The Politics of Invoking Chevron Deference’ (Public Law Working Paper No 400, Ohio State; Legal Studies Research Paper No 2017–21, University of Georgia School of Law, June 10 2017) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2984302>.
50 Gutierrez-Brizuela v Lynch, 834 F 3d 1142, 1152 (10th Cir, 2016).
51 Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2017, HR 76, 115th Congress (2017).
52 Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, S 951, 115th Congress (2017) s 4.
53 See, eg, Antonin, Scalia, ‘Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law’ [1989] (3) Duke Law Journal 511, 517Google Scholar; Cass, R Sunstein and Adrian, Vermeule, ‘The Unbearable Rightness of Auer’ (2017) 84 University of Chicago Law Review 297Google Scholar.
54 As discussed below, there have been a number of suggestions from the UK Supreme Court in recent years that deference may have some role to play in judicial review cases. There have also been some suggestions from the UK Supreme Court that there may be limits on parliamentary sovereignty derived from unwritten sources (especially the rule of law) challenging Diceyan orthodoxy: eg R (Jackson) v A-G [2006] 1 AC 262; R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663 (‘Cart’). Meanwhile, in reviewing administrative action, Australian courts have increasingly emphasised the supremacy of legislatures (within constitutional limits). See generally Janina Boughey and Lisa Burton Crawford, ‘Reconsidering R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal and the Rationale for Jurisdictional Error’ [2017] Public Law 592.
55 A-G (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35–6 (Brennan J) (‘Quin’). See generally Stephen, Gageler, ‘The Legitimate Scope of Judicial Review’ (2001) 21 Australian Bar Review 279Google Scholar.
56 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).
57 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 152–3 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
58 (1990) 170 CLR 1, 36.
59 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 153.
60 Ibid 152, quoting Stephen, Breyer, ‘Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy’ (1986) 38 Administrative Law Review 363, 381Google Scholar.
61 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 158 [59].
62 Development Regulations 1993 (SA) sch 1.
63 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 151 [40].
64 City of Arlington, Texas v Federal Communications Commission, (2013) 133 S Ct 1863.
65 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 258 (Fullagar J).
66 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 155 [48]–[49].
67 Ibid 155 [48], quoting R v Alley; Ex parte New South Wales Plumbers & Gasfitters Employees’ Union (1981) 153 CLR 376, 390 (Mason J).
68 Cane, above n 17, 216.
69 JusticeStephen, Gageler, ‘Deference’ (2015) 22 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 151, 154Google Scholar.
70 Justice Mark Leeming, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 2012) 62 (citations omitted).
71 Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144 (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ) (‘Malaysia Declaration Case’).
72 Ibid 193–4 [106].
73 Ibid 199–202 [125]–[136].
74 Matthew, Groves, ‘Federal Constitutional Influences on State Judicial Review’ (2011) 39 Federal Law Review 399, 404Google Scholar.
75 Ibid.
76 Woolworths Ltd v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707, 712 [16] (Spigelman CJ). See also Chief of Defence Force v Gaynor (2017) 246 FCR 298, 321 [102]; Alan, Freckleton, ‘The Concept of “Deference” in Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in Australia—Part 1’ (2013) 73 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 52, 52Google Scholar.
77 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 151 [40]; Mark, Aronson, Matthew, Groves and Greg, Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (LawBook, 6th ed, 2017) 200Google Scholar.
78 JP v MacMillan Bloedel Ltd [1995] 4 SCR 725, 752 [35] (Lamer CJ for La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ).
79 Crevier v A-G (Quebec) [1981] 2 SCR 220, 237.
80 [1979] 2 SCR 227 (‘New Brunswick Liquor’).
81 Ibid 229–30, quoting Public Service Labour Relations Act, RSNB 1973, c P–25, s 102(3)(a).
82 Ibid 231–2.
83 [1969] 2 AC 147 (‘Anisminic’).
84 SirWilliam, Wade and Christopher, Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 10th ed, 2009) 222Google Scholar.
85 New Brunswick Liquor [1979] 2 SCR 227, 235–6.
86 Ibid 236–7.
87 Mark, D Walters, ‘Jurisdiction, Functionalism, and Constitutionalism in Canadian Administrative Law’ in Christopher, Forsyth et al (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (Oxford University Press, 2010) 300, 304Google Scholar.
88 2017 SCC 20 (30 March 2017) (‘Green’).
89 Legal Profession Act, CCSM, c L–107.
90 Green 2017 SCC 20 (30 March 2017) [22]–[25] (Wagner J for McLachlin CJ, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Gascon JJ).
91 A second standard of deference was added in 1997, but in 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada reverted to a single deferential standard: see Southam Inc v Director of Investigation and Research (Canada) [1997] 1 SCR 748 and Dunsmuir v New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190 (‘Dunsmuir’) respectively.
92 Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alberta) v Alberta Teachers’ Association [2011] 3 SCR 654, 699 [87] (Binnie J for Deschamps J) (suggesting that reasonableness is a spectrum of standards, not a single standard); Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd [2016] 1 SCR 770, 795–6 [32]–[35] (Abella J) (suggesting that reasonableness is such a flexible standard that it is the only standard needed).
93 Janina, Boughey, Human Rights and Judicial Review in Australia and Canada: The Newest Despotism? (Hart Publishing, 2017) 246–7Google Scholar.
94 See, eg, Green 2017 SCC 20 (30 March 2017), [20]–[25] (Wagner J for McLachlin CJ, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Gascon JJ).
95 Procedural fairness is the exception, though there is debate as to whether it should be included. See Boughey, Human Rights and Judicial Review, above n 93, 256–60.
96 Baker v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada) [1999] 2 SCR 817 (‘Baker’).
97 Ibid 854 [54].
98 See, eg, Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35–6 (Brennan J).
99 Dean, R Knight, ‘Mapping the Rainbow of Review: Recognising Variable Intensity’ [2010] New Zealand Law Review 393, 413–5Google Scholar.
100 [1999] 2 SCR 817, 854–5 [54]–[56].
101 Gus, Van Harten et al, Administrative Law: Cases, Text and Materials (Emond Montgomery, 7th ed, 2015) 897Google Scholar.
102 Canada Revenue Agency v Telfer 2009 FCA 23 (11 June 2009) [21]–[22] (Evans JA, with whom Sexton and Ryer JJA agreed).
103 In Australia there are several such powers in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), including ss 202, 501. In Canada see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, div 4.
104 See, eg, Nigam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 127; Jaffarie v Director-General of Security (2014) 226 FCR 505.
105 See, eg, Ezokola v Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Canada) [2013] 2 SCR 678, 692–3 [28]–[30].
106 It is possible for different standards to apply to different aspects of the same decision: see, eg, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v SODRAC 2003 Inc [2015] 3 SCR 615, 638–41 [35]–[42] (Rothstein J for McLachlin CJ, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ).
107 Dunsmuir [2008] 1 SCR 190, 220–1 [47] (Bastarache and LeBel JJ for McLachlin CJ, Fish and Abella JJ).
108 Agraira v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Canada) [2013] 2 SCR 559, 530 [38].
109 Ibid 601 [90].
110 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, 229 (‘Wednesbury’); see also Janina, Boughey, ‘The Reasonableness of Proportionality in the Australian Administrative Law Context’ (2015) 43 Federal Law Review 59Google Scholar.
111 See Michael, Taggart, ‘Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury’ [2008] New Zealand Law Review 423Google Scholar, 462.
112 David, Dyzenhaus, ‘Proportionality and Deference in a Culture of Justification’ in Grant, Huscroft, Bradley, W Miller and Grégoire, Webber (eds), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 234, 252Google Scholar. The term is attributable to Etienne Mureinik: David, Dyzenhaus, ‘Law as Justification: Etienne Mureinik's Conception of Legal Culture’ (1998) 14 South African Journal on Human Rights 11Google Scholar.
113 Baker [1999] 2 SCR 817, 848 [43] (L’Heureux-Dubé J for Gonthier, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie JJ).
114 Adam, Perry and Farrah, Ahmed, ‘Expertise, Deference, and Giving Reasons’ [2012] Public Law 221Google Scholar.
115 David, Dyzenhaus, ‘The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy’ in Michael, Taggart (ed), The Province of Administrative Law (Hart Publishing, 1997) 279, 305–6Google Scholar.
116 Ibid 303–4; Dyzenhaus, ‘Proportionality and Deference’, above n 112, 255–6.
117 Dyzenhaus, ‘The Politics of Deference’, above n 115, 302–3.
118 Dyzenhaus, ‘Proportionality and Deference’, above n 112, 255.
119 See, eg, Baker [1999] 2 SCR 817, 859 [65] (L’Heureux-Dubé J for Gonthier, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie JJ); Dunsmuir [2008] 1 SCR 190, 221 [48] (Bastarache and LeBel JJ for McLachlin CJ, Fish and Abella JJ); Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Treasury Board (Newfoundland and Labrador) [2011] 3 SCR 708, 714 [12]–[13] (Abella J for the Court) (‘Newfoundland Nurses’).
120 (2013) 249 CLR 332.
121 Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223, 229.
122 Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 36 (Brennan J).
123 See Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 410 (Lord Diplock); Taggart, ‘Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury’, above n 111, 430.
124 Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, 368 [82] (Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
125 Ibid 367 [76].
126 Ibid 369 [85].
127 Boughey, ‘The Reasonableness of Proportionality’, above n 110.
128 Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, 364 [68].
129 Procedural fairness was not available as a ground of review, as the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) included an exhaustive procedural code, which had not been breached.
130 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, 41 (Mason J).
131 Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, 365 [70], 365–6 [72]. French CJ made similar statements at 351–2 [30].
132 See Boughey, ‘The Reasonableness of Proportionality’, above n 110, 61–3.
133 See, eg, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1, 5–6 [10]–[13] (Allsop CJ) (‘Stretton’); Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437, [43]–[47] (‘Singh’); Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 513, 529 [52]; Muggeridge v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200.
134 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Eden (2016) 240 FCR 158, 172 [64] (‘Eden’) (references omitted).
135 Though note that in Canada, this requirement need not be especially demanding, and reasons may be supplemented by the reviewing court: see Newfoundland Nurses [2011] 3 SCR 708.
136 Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, 351 [28].
137 See generally Wade and Forsyth, above n 84, 308–9; Cane, above n 17, 209–10.
138 See, eg, Alison, L Young, ‘In Defence of Due Deference’ (2009) 72 Modern Law Review 554Google Scholar; Mark, Elliott, ‘Proportionality and Deference: The Importance of a Structured Approach’ in Christopher, Forsyth et al (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (Oxford University Press, 2010) 264Google Scholar; TRS, Allan, ‘Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of “Due Deference”’ (2006) 65 Cambridge Law Journal 671Google Scholar; Jeffrey, Jowell, ‘Judicial Deference: Servility, Civility or Institutional Capacity?’ [2003] Public Law 592Google Scholar.
139 Elliott, ‘Proportionality and Deference’, above n 138.
140 Ibid 270–71.
141 See, eg, R (Carlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] AC 945, 965 [22] (Lord Sumption JSC) (‘Carlile’); AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2012] 1 AC 868, 907 [32] (Lord Hope); R (ProLife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation [2004] 1 AC 185, 240 [75]; Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167, 184–5 [14]–[16].
142 See, eg, Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167, 185 [16]; R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2015] AC 657, 858 [296] (Lord Reed); Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 1420, 1431 [32], 1432 [37] (Baroness Hale) (‘Miss Behavin’’).
143 R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1 AC 100, 124 [63] (Lord Hoffmann).
144 See, eg, Mark, Elliott, ‘From Bifurcation to Calibration: Twin-Track Deference and the Culture of Justification’ in Hanna, Wilberg and Mark, Elliott (eds), The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review: Traversing Taggart's Rainbow (Hart Publishing, 2015) 61Google Scholar, 71–2.
145 Miss Behavin’ [2007] 1 WLR 1420, 1432 [37].
146 [2007] 1 AC 100.
147 Ibid 117 [34].
148 See, eg, Secretary of State for The Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153, 184 [26] (Lord Slynn), 187 [31] (Lord Steyn), 191–2 [49] (Lord Hoffmann); Carlile [2015] AC 945, 1007 [150] (Lord Kerr); R (Quila & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 621, 660 [91] (Lord Brown).
149 [2012] 1 AC 663.
150 Ibid 686–7 [49]–[50] (Lady Hale), 704 [116], 706 [123] (Lord Dyson).
151 Ibid 687 [52] (Lady Hale), 705–6, [118]–[121] (Lord Dyson).
152 Dyzenhaus, ‘The Politics of Deference’, above n 115, 279.
153 Ibid 286.
154 See, eg, Aileen, Kavanagh, ‘Deference or Defiance? The Limits of the Judicial Role in Constitutional Adjudication’ in Grant, Huscroft (ed), Expounding the Constitution: Essays in Constitutional Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 184Google Scholar, 191–2 (drawing a distinction between ‘minimal’ and ‘substantial’ deference).
155 Elliott, ‘From Bifurcation to Calibration’, above n 144, 71.
156 Ibid, 70–1.
157 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 410 (Lord Diplock).
158 TRS Allan and Aileen Kavanagh have each made this point. See Allan, above n 138, 671–2; Aileen, Kavanagh, Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge University Press, 2009) 173Google Scholar.
159 See R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 (‘Melbourne Stevedoring’).
160 See, eg, Melbourne Stevedoring (1953) 88 CLR 100, 119 (Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ).
161 Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223, 228; Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 36 (Brennan J); Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437, 446–7 [47]; Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1, 26 (Griffiths J).
162 See, eg, Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1, 6 [12] (Allsop CJ); Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 37 (Brennan J).
163 Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223, 230; Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 37 (Brennan J); R v Home Secretary; Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696, 767; Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, 377 [111] (Gageler J).
164 See Certain Children v Minister for Families and Children (No 2) [2017] VSC 251, [215]–[219] (‘Certain Children’); PJB v Melbourne Health (2011) 39 VR 373, 446 [324].
165 Certain Children [2017] VSC 251, [216].
166 Ibid [217]. It should be noted that in the circumstances of this case, Dixon J found that limited or no ‘weight’ was appropriate: at [218]. It is also noteworthy that Dixon J's approach to the plaintiff's administrative law arguments in the case (natural justice and jurisdictional facts) exhibited great ‘deference’ to the executive branch, in stark contrast to his Honour's approach to the plaintiff's human rights arguments: compare [99], [152] with [207], [218].
167 PJB v Melbourne Health (2011) 39 VR 373, 446 [324].
168 A point made by Edelman J, who suggested the label of ‘judicial restraint’ instead of ‘deference’: Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Economic Regulation Authority [2014] WASC 346, [141]–[147] (‘Pilbara’).
169 R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox (1945) 70 CLR 598, 615 (Dixon J) (‘Hickman’).
170 Gageler, above n 69, 155.
171 See Boughey and Crawford, above n 54, 599–601.
172 Hayne, above n 20, 75, 89.
173 See Taggart's discussion of Australian exceptionalism in administrative law: Michael, Taggart, ‘“Australian Exceptionalism” in Judicial Review’ (2008) 36 Federal Law Review 1Google Scholar.
174 Enfield (2000) 199 CLR 135, 155 [48]–[49] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
175 Malaysia Declaration Case (2011) 244 CLR 144, 180 [58] (French CJ).
176 Ibid 180 [58] (French CJ), 208 [161] (Heydon J).
177 Ibid 209 [163] (Heydon J).
178 Ibid 183 [67]–[68].
179 Pilbara [2014] WASC 346, [147].
