Full Chapter Principles of Administrative Law 3Rd Edition Peter Cane Leighton Mcdonald Kristen Rundle PDF

Principles of Administrative Law 3rd
Edition Peter Cane Leighton Mcdonald

Kristen Rundle
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/principles-of-administrative-law-3rd-edition-peter-can
e-leighton-mcdonald-kristen-rundle/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Administrative Law: Principles and Advocacy 4th Edition

Liz Nastasi
https://textbookfull.com/product/administrative-law-principles-
and-advocacy-4th-edition-liz-nastasi/
Principles of Fermentation Technology 3rd Edition Peter

F Stanbury
https://textbookfull.com/product/principles-of-fermentation-
technology-3rd-edition-peter-f-stanbury/
Administrative Law First Edition. Edition Cann
https://textbookfull.com/product/administrative-law-first-
edition-edition-cann/
The principles of the law of restitution 3rd Edition

Virgo
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-principles-of-the-law-of-
restitution-3rd-edition-virgo/
Comparative Administrative Law 2nd Edition Blake
Emerson
https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-administrative-
law-2nd-edition-blake-emerson/
Craig: Administrative Law 9th Edition Paul P. Craig
https://textbookfull.com/product/craig-administrative-law-9th-
edition-paul-p-craig/
Glaucoma Medical Therapy Principles and Management 3rd

Edition Peter A. Netland
https://textbookfull.com/product/glaucoma-medical-therapy-
principles-and-management-3rd-edition-peter-a-netland/
Cane Jean Toomer
https://textbookfull.com/product/cane-jean-toomer/
Due process of law beyond the state : requirements of

administrative procedure 1st Edition Della Cananea
https://textbookfull.com/product/due-process-of-law-beyond-the-
state-requirements-of-administrative-procedure-1st-edition-della-
cananea/
TITLE: CAN_PAL_05246_CVR FORMAT: 245MM X 170MM SPINE:22.5MM CMYK
Now in its third edition, Principles of Administrative Law is a comprehensive and clear
Principles of Administrative Law

account of administrative law in Australia. Drawing upon legal theory and empirical
legal research, the text sets out the essentials of the subject while exploring the law’s
conceptual foundations and underlying principles.
New to this edition

• A new introductory chapter that reframes the book’s approach to Australian
administrative law
• An increased emphasis on the ‘constitutionalisation’ of modern Australian
administrative law
• A thoroughly revised treatment of jurisdictional error and the grounds of review
(administrative law norms)
• Revisions to incorporate legislative changes and important new cases, including:
- the amalgamation of Commonwealth tribunals
- the High Court’s decisions in Li, WZARH and Graham
• A new discussion of the challenges raised by the use of contract as a tool of
governance
• Revised throughout to incorporate recent legislative changes and relevant
materials
Peter Cane is a Senior Research Fellow of Christ’s College at Cambridge, and
Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the Australian National University.
Leighton McDonald is an Associate Professor in the Law School at the Australian
National University.
Kristen Rundle is an Associate Professor in the Melbourne Law School at the
University of Melbourne.
Third
To get the most from this text, read it in conjunction with Cases for Principles of Edition
Administrative Law third edition.
Copyright © 2018. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Principles of
McDonald Administrative Law
Rundle
Cane
Cases for
Principles of
Administrative Law
McDonald
Rundle
Cane
Third Edition
Peter Cane
Leighton McDonald
Third Edition
Kristen Rundle
Peter Cane
ISBN 978-0-19-030524-6
Leighton McDonald
Kristen Rundle
9 780190 305246
visit us at: oup.com.au or

contact customer service: cs.au@oup.com Cane, Peter, et al. Principles of Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=5407331.
Created from usyd on 2021-02-25 16:48:36.
CAN_PAL_05246_CVR_SI.indd All Pages 4/1/18 1:46 pm

Cane, Peter, et al. Principles of Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central,
PRINCIPLES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 1 21/12/2017 11:42 AM


PRINCIPLES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
THIRD EDITION
Peter Cane, Leighton McDonald and

Kristen Rundle

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,scholarship, and education by
publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
in certain other countries.
Published in Australia by
Oxford University Press
253 Normanby Road, South Melbourne, Victoria 3205, Australia
© Peter Cane, Leighton McDonald and Kristen Rundle 2018
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted.
First published 2009
Second edition published 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the
scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on
any acquirer.
Reproduction and communication for educational purposes
The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter
or 10% of the pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced
and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes
provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has
given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.
For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact:
Copyright Agency Limited
Level 11, 66 Goulburn Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: (02) 9394 7600
Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601
Email: info@copyright.com.au
Edited by Joy Window (Living Language)
Cover Image: Shutterstock
Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

Proofread by Gaby Grammeno
Indexed by Trischa Mann
Printed in China by Leo Paper Products Ltd.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims
any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

PREFACE
Law books come in various shapes and sizes. The traditional textbook is very long and sets
out to deal comprehensively with an area of law. A book with ‘introduction’ in its title may be
a sort of short textbook that aims to provide the student with rudimentary rather than detailed
coverage of the subject. A monograph typically has a narrower focus than either a short or
a long text, dealing in depth with one topic or a small set of related topics within an area of
law. Unlike the typical textbook, a monograph will often contain an overarching ‘thesis’ or
‘argument’ that the author wants to explore or defend.
This book does not fall neatly into any of these categories. It is shorter than the typical
textbook but longer than the typical introduction. While we provide no single or unitary
explanation of or argument about administrative law, throughout the book we develop a
number of themes to help the reader find in administrative law a whole that is more than
the sum of its various and often confusing parts. By introducing insights from legal history,
comparative experience, legal theory and empirical legal research, our aim has been to offer
a set of ideas, and to suggest ways of thinking about administrative law that will provide a
path through a dense and confusing mass of detail. In short, we have tried not just to provide
a statement of the law but also to interpret and make some sense of it. This objective has
necessarily required us to leave out a lot of the detail to be found in longer books. However,
we have tried to avoid the trap, into which short books sometimes fall, of making the law
seem more straightforward and clear than it actually is. Not everyone will approve of
our presentation and interpretations of the law or agree with all our arguments; but that
is inevitable and, indeed, desirable. More important by far than simply learning the law is
learning to think critically about the law.
We hope this book will be of interest to readers who already have some knowledge of
the subject in addition to serving its primary objective of facilitating the learning of those
coming to the subject for the first time. To assist with the book’s primary purpose, however, it
is supplemented by a companion volume of cases. Such volumes were originally introduced
(in the United States in the late nineteenth century) to facilitate an interactive, ‘Socratic’ form
of teaching, but more often now they merely provide a sort of portable library of relevant
(and, often, much abridged) readings. Some cases and materials volumes include significant
amounts of connecting ‘text’ as well as questions and comments on the extracts; and such
a volume can be thought of as a sort of ‘illustrated textbook’. Once again, our volume of
cases does not fit this mould. It contains fewer extracts than is typical and those extracts
are generally much longer than is usual. You can read more about how best to use the cases
volume in its preface.

VIII PREFACE
In the context of the delivery of university-level administrative law courses, we are

hopeful that the use of this book will free up more class time than might otherwise be
available for intellectually rewarding explorations of the complexities and uncertainties
of the law. By setting out the key principles and essential technical details of the subject,
the book is intended to enable teachers and students to use class time to engage with our
interpretations and arguments, to consider practical applications of the principles we discuss,
and to allow space for critical analysis based on particular cases and other readings that will
also be prescribed. The sort of engagement with administrative law we envisage will enable
students to understand better the limits and promise of administrative law in regulating the
relationship between the ‘governors’ and the ‘governed’ in our society and, thus, the extent
to which administrative law contributes to securing the legitimate exercise of power in an
‘administrative state’.
There have been various significant changes in the law since we wrote the second
edition of this book, and all the chapters have been thoroughly revised. In some instances,
important new developments (such as the High Court’s decision in Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship v Li) have required entire sections of the book to be re-written. More generally,
numerous important cases have been woven into the discussion (including Graham v Minister
for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33, which was published just prior to the
completion of the manuscript).
We have also taken the opportunity to make some changes to the structure and content
of the book. Rather than including a standalone chapter devoted to the ‘historical and
constitutional contexts’ of Australian administrative law, in this edition we have preferred
to include historical context in the substantive chapters of the book where it is of particular
assistance in understanding the law’s trajectory. And, as we explain in Chapter 1, this edition
places even greater emphasis than we have previously on the varied manifestations of what
may be described as the ‘constitutionalisation’ of administrative law in Australia.
Another omission from this edition is a chapter on private law in a public context.
We continue to believe that private law plays a significant role in the legal control of the
performance of government functions (and therefore is important to a well-rounded

understanding of administrative law). However, feedback indicated this chapter of the book
was not routinely used in the teaching of administrative law for reasons related to how
curriculum is carved up in Australian law schools. Nevertheless, the role of private law in the
legal regulation of government power continues to receive recognition in the book with the
introduction of a new section (see 2.7) on challenges raised by the use of contract as a tool of
governance. Contract increasingly occupies a central place in the governing of Australia. In
this context, it has the potential, if not the express aim, of excluding judicial review and other
modes of administrative-law accountability. Some treatment of the subject in a book such as
this is, therefore, important.
This edition also includes an entirely re-written introductory chapter that reframes
our presentation of Australian administrative law. We will let that introduction speak for
itself, noting here only that this exercise has resulted not only in a new Chapter 1, but also
in a thoroughly revised and relocated treatment of jurisdictional error (in the discussion of

PREFACE IX
remedies in Chapter 3), and significant modifications to Chapter 4 on the grounds of review,
which (we argue) establish what we refer to as ‘administrative law norms’.
Writing this third edition has been a collaborative effort. Kristen and Leighton took the
lead in co-authoring the new Chapter 1; Kristen had primary responsibility for Chapter 5,
the treatment of procedural fairness in Chapter 4, and the section on contract as a tool of
governance (2.7); Peter had responsibility for the revision of Chapters 7–10; and Leighton
had primary responsibility for the remainder. We gratefully thank all the members of the
production team at Oxford University Press for their efficiency and support.
Peter and Leighton are delighted to welcome Kristen to the authorship team. She has
brought invaluable new ideas and fresh perspectives to the writing and editing table (as it
were). Peter thanks the Master and Fellows of Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he now
lives and works. The research facilities and environment of the College are second to none.
Leighton thanks the ANU law school and his colleagues for providing a stimulating
environment for teaching and writing about public law. More particularly, he thanks Will
Bateman, Christos Mantziaris, Dennis Pearce, James Stellios, Daniel Stewart, and Greg Weeks
for continuing to share their deep knowledge of and insights into Australian administrative law.
Some of the ideas in this edition about administrative law norms were originally developed
collaboratively with Will. Marilú Costa also provided important intellectual impetus for re-
thinking Chapter 4. Above all, he thanks Marilú for her constant support and for making even
chilly Canberra days sparkle.
Kristen sincerely thanks her colleagues at Melbourne Law School, in particular Adrienne
Stone, Cheryl Saunders and the larger community of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional
Studies, for making her return to thinking about Australian public law so stimulating and
rewarding. No small credit also goes to her teaching colleagues over the course of 2015–17,
as well as to her superb students. Thanks are also due to Matthew Harper and Stephen
O’Connell, both research assistants with the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies,
for their able research assistance. Above all, Kristen would like to thank Leighton and Peter
for inviting her to join such a worthwhile project, and for their consistently collegial and
supportive collaboration.
Peter Cane, Leighton McDonald and Kristen Rundle, October 2017

TABLE OF CASES
A v Independent Commission Against Corruption Antipova v Minister for Immigration and

[2014] NSWCA 414 [6.2.4.1] Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006)
Aala’s case see Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex 151 FCR 480 [4.2.2.2]
parte Aala Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for
AB v Western Australia (2011) 281 ALR 694 [4.6] Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88 [4.2.2.3]
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR
510 [1.3] Applied Medical Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for
Health (2016) 246 FCR 555 [2.5.1.3]
Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Minister for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Argos Pty Ltd v Corbell (2014) 254 CLR 394 [5.2]
(1996) 69 FCR 565 [4.3.4] Arnold (on behalf of Australians for Animals)
Acquista Investments Pty Ltd v Urban Renewal v State of Queensland (1987) 13 ALD
Authority (2015) 123 SASR 147 [2.7] 195 [7.5.2]
Adams and Tax Agents Board, Re (1976) 1 ALD Arthur Yates & Company Pty Ltd v Vegetable
251 [7.5.1.1] Seeds Committee (1945) 72 CLR 37, 81 [1.3]
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v
Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) 76 FCR 582 [2.5.1.3]
Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB
Aga Khan case see R v Disciplinary Committee of 223 [4.5]
the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan
Aston and Department of Primary Industries, Re
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 (1985) 8 ALD 366 [7.6.3]
Agricultural Societies Council of NSW v Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council v
Christie (2016) 340 ALR 560; [2016] NSWCA Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546 [2.6.1]
331 [2.5.1.4.1], [2.6.1]
Attorney- General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 83 [3.7.2]
175 CLR 564 [3.5.1.1], [3.5.1.2], [3.5.1.5],
Attorney- General (NSW) v 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd

[4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.3]
(2006) 236 ALR 385 [7.2.1], [7.7]
Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002)
Attorney- General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR
212 CLR 411 [4.4.3]
1 [2.2.2], [4.3.3], [4.5], [4.6]
Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home
Attorney- General of Hong Kong v Ng Yue Shiu
Department [1990] 1 AC 876 [4.2.2.3] [1983] 2 AC 629 [4.2.2.1]
Alphapharm Pty Ltd v SmithKline Beecham Attorney- General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920]
(Australia) Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FC R 250 [4.4.3] AC 508 [2.6.2.2.]
Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery Ltd v
Environment and Conservation [2007] Australian Medical Council Ltd [2015] FCA
NSWSC 221 [5.2] 468 [2.5.2]
Animals’ Angels e. V. v Secretary, Department of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990)
Agriculture (2014) 228 FCR 35 [5.2] 170 CLR 321 [2.5.1], [4.2.4], [4.4.1], [4.4.2],
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation [4.4.2.2], [4.4.3], [7.5.1.1]
Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 [3.4], [3.7.3], Australian Capital Territory Health Authority v
[6.2.2] Berkeley Cleaning Group Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 [4.2.2.2] 575 [2.5.1.4.1]
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone
Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54 [4.3.4] Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 [4.2.2.3]

TABLE OF CASES XI
Australian Communications and Media Authority Bare v Independent Broad-Based Anti- Corruption
v Today FM (Sydney) Pty Ltd (2015) 255 CLR Commission [2015] VSCA 197 [4.6]
352 [4.6] Barreto v McMullan [2014] WASCA
Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth 152 [4.4.2.1.1]
(1951) 83 CLR 1 [2.2.2] Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR
Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated 477 [2.6.2.2]
v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR Bass v Permanent Trustees Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR
493 [5.1], [5.2] 334 [3.5.1.5]
Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for
v Forestry Commission of Tasmania (1988) 19 Environment Protection, Heritage and the
FCR 127 [4.3.1] Arts (No 2) (2011) 280 ALR 91 [5.4]
Australian Education Union v General Manager Bateman v Health Insurance Commission (1998)
of Fair Work Australia (2012) 246 CLR 54 ALD 408 [7.6.3]
117 [2.4.1.1]
Bateman’s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v
Australian Fisheries Management Authority v PW Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd
Adams Pty Ltd (1995) 39 ALD 481 [7.6.3] (1998) 194 CLR 247 [3.5.1.4], [5.1], [5.2], [5.4]
Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Batterham v QSR Ltd (2006) 225 CLR 237 [6.2.2]
Mines Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 297 [4.4.2.1.1]
Becker and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Australian Metal Holdings Pty Ltd and Australian Affairs, Re (1977) 1 ALD 158 [7.6.3]
Securities Commission and Others, Re (1995)
37 ALD 131 [7.6.3] Bhardwaj see Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj
Australian National University v Burns (1985) 43
ALR 25 [2.5.1.4.1] Bilborough v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
(2007) 162 FCR 160 [2.5.1.4.1]
Australian National University v Lewins (1996) 68
FCR 87 [2.5.1.3] Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615 [2.5.1.3]
Australian Postal Corporation v D’Rozario (2014) Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and
222 FCR 303 [4.4.2.2] Multicultural Affairs (2007) 228 CLR
651 [2.4.1.1], [3.5.3], [5.1], [6.2.3], [6.2.4.3],
Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of
[6.2.4.4]
Australia (2005) 148 FCR 446 [4.4.2.2]
Boilermakers’ case see R v Kirby; Ex parte
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Boilermakers’ Society of Australia
v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2011) 195
FCR 485 [4.4.3] Bond’s case see Australian Broadcasting Tribunal
v Bond
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 341 ALR
559 [2.4.2] 179 [4.3.1]
Automotive, Food Metals, Engineering, Printing Botany Bay City Council v Minister of State and
and Kindred Industries Union v ALS Transport and Regional Development (1996)
Industrial Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 235 FCR 66 FCR 537 [5.4]
305 [3.5.1.1] Boyce v Paddington Borough Council [1903] 1 Ch
Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of 109 [5.1]
Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 [4.3], [4.5] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Aye v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245 [7.7]
(2010) 187 FCR 449; (2010) 269 ALR Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales v Evans
298 [2.5.1.4], [2.6.2.2], [2.6.2.3] (1981) 180 CLR 404 [4.3.4]
AZAFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Brennan v New South Wales Land and
Protection (2016) 243 FCR 451 [4.3.1] Housing Corporation [2011] NSWCA
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 298 [4.4.2.2]
NSWLR 139 [4.4.3] Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector
of Customs (NSW), Re (1978) 1 ALD
Baba v Parole Board (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 167 [7.5.1.1], [7.6.1], [7.6.4.2], [7.6.5]
338 [4.2.2.2] Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector
Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) of Customs, Re (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD
76 CLR 1 [2.4.1.2], [5.1], [6.2.4.1] 167 [7.5.1.1], [7.6.1], [7.6.4.1], [7.6.5]
Baran and Department of Primary Industries and British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns [1965] 1
Energy, Re (1988) 18 ALD 379 [7.6.4.1] Ch 32 [2.6.2.2]

XII TABLE OF CASES
British Imperial Oil Co Ltd v Federal Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian
Commissioner of Taxation (1925) 35 CLR Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203
422 [7.1] CLR 194 [4.4.2.1.2]
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 [4.1.1],
[1971] AC 610 [4.3.3] [4.3], [4.6]
Broadbent v Medical Board of Queensland [2011] Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security
FCA 980 [2.4.1.2] (1999) 56 ALD 338 [7.5.1.1]
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163 [4.4.2.2], [4.6] Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 [4.4.2.1.2] Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307, (1979)
Burns v Australian National University (1982) 40 2 ALD 1 [3.7], [7.5.1.1]
ALR 707 [2.5.1.3] Collector of Customs v Agfa- Gevaert Ltd (1996)
Byrne v Marles [2008] VR 612 [3.5.1.1] 186 CLR 389 [4.4.1], [4.4.3]
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty
Cains v Jenkins (1979) 28 ALR 219 [4.2.2.3] Ltd (1993) 43 FC R 280 [4.4.3]
Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574 [4.2.5.1] Colonial Bank of Australiasia v Willan (1874) LR 5
PC 417 [6.1]
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67
NSWLR 672 [4.2.4] Comcare v Eames (2008) 101 ALD 90 [3.3]
Carey, Re; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd Comcare v Etheridge (2006) 149 FC R 522 [4.4.1]
(2006) 32 WAR 501 [3.4] Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory
Carltona Ltd v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR
ER 560 [4.3.5] 576 [4.2.2.3]
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service see Council Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR
of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil 383 [4.2.2.2]
Service Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal
Century Metals and Mining NL v Yeomans (1989) Insurance Australia Ltd (1994) 182 CLR
100 ALR 383 [4.2.3] 51 [3.5.1.3]
Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corp Ltd
Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 73 FCR (2008) 237 CLR 146 [3.5.3], [6.2.4.1]
528 [2.5.1.2] Commissioner of Taxation v Primary Health Care
Chapmans v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd (1966) Ltd [2017] 131 [4.3.1]
67 FCR 402 [2.5.1.3] Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing v
Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Delegate of Australian Postal Commission
Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393 [2.4.3], [2.6.1], (1979) 2 ALD 561 [7.6.4.2]
[3.3], [3.4], [3.5.1.1] Commonwealth v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR
Chen Zhen Zi v Minister for Immigration and 471 [2.4.3], [2.5.2]
Ethnic Affairs (1994) 48 FCR 591 [4.2.2.3] Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw
Chevron USA, Inc v Natural Resources Defence [1952] 1 KB 338 [3.5.1.1]
Council, Inc, 467 US 837 (1984) [4.4], Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union
[4.4.2.1.1] v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry
Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans Inspectorate [2016] HCA 41 [2.4.1.1]
[1982] 3 All ER 141 [2.2.1], [2.2.2] Control Investment Pty Ltd and Australian
Chittick v Ackland (1984) 1 FCR 254 [2.5.1.4] Broadcasting Tribunal (No 1), Re (1980) 3 ALD
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local 74 [7.5.1.2], [7.5.2]
Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 [9.7.5]
CLR 1 [4.6] Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 143
Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) 154 ER 414 [4.6]
CLR 25 [2.6.2.2], [6.2.4.4] Corporation of City of Enfield v Development
City of Enfield v Development Assessment Assessment Commission (2000) 199
Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 [2.2.2], CLR 135 [2.2.2], [2.6.2], [3.5.1], [4.4],
[3.5.1], [4.4], [4.4.2.1.1], [5.4] [4.4.2.1.1], [5.4]
City of Port Adelaide Enfield v Bingham (2014) 119 Cotterill v Minister for Immigration and Border
SASR 1 [3.5.1.1] Protection [2016] FCAFC 61 [4.5]
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for
Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263, (2009) 179 FCR the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 [2.6.2.2],
554 [4.2.5.2] [2.6.2.3], [4.2.2.1]

TABLE OF CASES XIII
Council of the City of Parramatta v Pestell (1972) Easwaralingam v Director of Public Prosecutions
128 CLR 305 [4.5] (2010) 208 A Crim R 122 [3.5.1.1]
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205
Protection (2015) 255 CLR 514 [3.4], [4.3.4] CLR 337 [4.2.3]
Craig v (State of) South Australia (1995) 184 Edelsten v Health Insurance Commission (1990)
CLR 163; (1995) HCA 58 [3.4], [3.5.1.1], 27 FCR 56 [2.5.1.2]
[4.4.1], [7.7] Edelsten v Wilcox (1988) 83 ALR 99 [4.5]
Croome v Tasmania (1997) 191 CLR Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC
119 [2.4.1.3], [5.4] 14 [4.4.3]
Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Davies (1992) Edwards v Santos Ltd (2011) 242 CLR 421 [5.4]
34 FCR 212 [4.4.2.2]
Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (No
2) (2010) 186 FCR 393 [4.2.5.2]
D’Souza v The Royal Australian and New Zealand
College of Psychiatrists (2005) 12 VR 42 [2.6.1] Electricity Supply Association of Australia Ltd
v Australian Competition and Consumer
Darling Casino Ltd v NSW Casino Control Commission (2001) 111 FCR 230 [2.5.1.2],
Authority (1997) 191 CLR 602 [6.1], [6.2.1] [3.5.1.5]
Datafin casesee R v Panel on Takeovers and Electrolux Home Pty Ltd v Australian Workers
Mergers, Ex parte Datafin Plc Union (2004) 221 CLR 309 [4.6]
Davies v Minister for Urban Development and Enfield see Corporation of the City of Enfield v
Planning [2011] SASC 87 [3.5.1.5] Development Assessment Commission
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030; 95 ER
Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168 [2.4.1.1], 807 [4.6]
[2.4.1.2], [2.4.2]
Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 [2.2.2]
Dimes v Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal
Evans and Secretary, Department of Primary
(1852) 3 HL Cas 759 [4.2.3]
Industry, Re (1985) ALD 627 [7.6.3]
Din v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Evans v New South Wales (2008) 168 FCR
(1997) 147 ALR 673 [4.3.5]
576 [4.6]
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian
Ex parte Wilkes; Re Minister for Education [1962]
Capital Territory v Martin (2014) 286 FLR
SR (NSW) 220 [3.5.1.3]
120 [6.1]
Director of Public Prosecutions v Head [1958] 1
F Hoffmann-La Roche and Co AG v Secretary of
QB 132 [3.7.2]
State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 [3.7]
Ditfort, ex parte Deputy Commissioner of
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR
Taxation, Re (1988) 19 FCR 347 [2.6.2.3]
342 [4.2.2.1]
Dorf Industries Pty Ltd v Toose (1994) 127 ALR
Federal Airports Corporation v Aerolineas
654 [2.5.1.4.2]
Argentinas (1997) 76 FC R 582 [2.5.1.3]
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Munro (1926)
Affairs (‘Drake No 1’) (1978) 2 ALD 60 [7.1],
38 CLR 153 [7.1]
[7.6.1], [7.6.3], [7.6.5]
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Official
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Liquidator of EO Farley Ltd (1940) 63 CLR
(‘Drake No 2’), Re (1979) 2 ALD 634 [7.6.3]
278 [2.6.2.2]
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration
Flaherty v Secretary, Department of Health and
& Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR
Ageing (2010) 184 FCR 564 [3.7.1]
389 [4.2.1], [4.3.1]
Forbes v New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd
Dunghutti Elders Council (Aboriginal Corporation) (1979) 143 CLR 242 [2.6.1], [3.5.1.1]
RNTBC v Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Corporations (2011) 195 FCR Forge v Australian Securities & Investments
318 [4.2.2.3] Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45; (2006) 229
ALR 223 [6.1], [7.2.1]
Dyson v Attorney- General [1911] 1 KB
410 [3.5.1.5] Forrest v Wilson [2017] HCA 30 [4.2.5.2]
Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice (2000)
Eastman v Australian Capital Territory (2008) 2 200 CLR 442 [4.3.1]
ACTLR 180; (2008) 227 FLR 279 [2.5.1.2] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 [2.2.1]
Eastman v Besanko (2010) 244 FLR Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning
262 [2.5.1.4.1] [1948] AC 87 [4.2.3]

XIV TABLE OF CASES
Franklin v The Queen (No 2) [1974] QB Hicks v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
208 [3.5.1] and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 146 FCR
Friends of Elliston— Environment & Conservation 427 [3.1.1]
Inc v South Australia (2007) 96 SASR 246 [5.2] Hicks v Ruddock (2007) 156 FC R 574 [2.6.2.3]
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Hindi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Protection [2014] HCA 26; (2014) 310 ALR Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 1 [4.3.1]
1 [4.1.2] Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR
1 [4.4.3]
Gay Solidarity Group and Minister for Immigration Hot Holding Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR
and Ethnic Affairs, Re (1983) 5 ALD 289 [7.5.2] 438 [3.5.1.1], [4.2.2.3], [4.2.3], [4.3.1]
Gay Solidarity Group and Minister for Immigration House v Defence Force Retirement and Death
and Ethnic Affairs, Re (1983) 5 ALD Benefits Authority (2011) 193 FCR 112 [4.4.1]
289 [7.5.1.2]
Howard and the Treasurer, Re (1985) 7 ALD
Gedeon v NSW Crime Commission (2008) 236 645 [9.6.5], [9.6.6], [9.8]
CLR 120 [3.7.2], [4.4.2.1]
Hu v Migrations Agents Registration Authority
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation [2010] FCA 674 [2.5.1.4.1]
(1993) 45 FCR 164 [2.5.1.4.1]
Huddart Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909)
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557 [4.6] 8 CLR 330 [1.3], [7.1]
Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices
Protection [2017] FCAFC 51 [3.6] Australia (1997) 76 FCR 151 [2.7], [4.3.4]
Gillick v West Norfold and Weisbach Area Health Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs (2008) 103
Authority [1986] AC 112 [3.5.1.5] ALD 66 [7.1]
Glasson v Parkes Rural Distributions Pty Ltd Hutchins v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
(1984) 155 CLR 234 [2.5.1.4.2] (1996) 65 FC R 269 [2.5.1.4.1]
Goldie v Commonwealth [2002] FCA 261 [4.3.1]
Goodson and Secretary, Department of Ilic v City of Adelaide (2010) 107 SASR 139 [4.4.2.1.1]
Employment, Education, Training and Youth In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR
Affairs, Re (1996) 42 ALD 651 [7.6.3] 257 [2.4.1.3]
Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Independent Commission Against Corruption v
Protection [2017] HCA 33 [3.5.3], [6.1], [6.2], Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1 [4.6]
[6.2.2], [6.2.3], [6.2.4.3], [6.2.4.4] Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia
Green v Daniels (1977) 13 ALR 1 [3.5.1.5], [4.3.3], (1969) 199 CLR 33 [2.4.2]
[4.6], [7.6.3] International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South
Greenham and Minister for Capital Territory, Re Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR
(1979) 2 ALD 137 [7.6.1], [7.6.4.2] 319 [7.2.1]
Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR
[2003] NSWCA 388 [2.2.2] 135 [4.2.3]
Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 89 [1.4], Italiano v Carbone [2005] NSWCA 177 [4.2.5.2]
[2.5.1], [2.5.1.3], [2.5.1.4.1], [2.5.1.4.2], [5.4]
Jacob v Save Beeliar Wetlands (Inc) [2016] WASCA
Habib v Commonwealth (2010) 183 FCR 126 [4.3.1], [4.3.3], [4.5]
62 [2.6.2.3], [4.2.2.3], [4.3.4] Jadwan Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Health
Habib v Director of Security (2009) 175 FC R and Aged Care (2003) 145 FCR 1 [3.2],
411 [4.2.2.3] [3.5.2], [3.7.1]
Habib v Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade James v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation
(2010) 192 FC R 148 [4.3.4] Commission (2010) 186 FCR 134 [4.5]
Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Jetopay Pty Ltd and Australian Fisheries
Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648 [4.2.2.1] Management Authority, Re (1993) 32 ALD
Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 209 [7.6.3]
233 FCR 315 [4.4.1], [4.4.2.1.2], [4.4.3] JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia
Harris v Director General of Social Security (1985) (2012) 201 FCR 297 [3.6]
7 ALD 277 [7.6.4.2] John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Australian
Herrington Re Election for offices in Telecommunications Commission [1977] 2
Communications Division of the CEPU (2005) NSWLR 400 [3.5.1.3]
144 IR 143 [3.5.1.3] John v Rees [1970] 1 Ch 345 [4.2.1]

TABLE OF CASES XV
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Macksville & District Hospital v Mayze (1987) 10
(1996) 189 CLR 51 [4.6], [7.2.1] NSWLR 708 [4.2.5.1]
Kavvadias v Commonwealth Ombudsman (1984) Macoun v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 257
54 ALR 285 [9.2] CLR 519 [4.4.3]
Kelson v Forward (1995) 60 FC R 39 [2.5.1.2] Malincevski and Minister for Immigration, Local
Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Government and Ethnic Affairs, Re (1991) 24
(1987) 14 ALD 291 [4.3.1] ALD 331 [7.6.3]
Khuu & Lee Pty Ltd v Corporation of the City of Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Adelaide (2011) SASR 235 [2.5.1.4.1], [2.6.1] [1979] Ch 344 [2.6.2.2]
Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home
Council (2006) 143 LGERA 277 [4.3.1] Department [2015] UKSC 59; [2015] 1 WLR
King v Director of Housing (2013) 23 Tas R 4546 [4.3.3]
353 [2.5.1.4.1] Marine Hull and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 [4.1.2], [4.2.2.3], Hurford (1985) 10 FCR 234 [4.2.2.3]
[4.2], [4.2.2] Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Ltd
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales v Marrickville Council (2010) 174 LGERA
(2010) 239 CLR 531 [1.3], [2.1], [2.3.1], [2.4.1], 67 [4.2.5.2]
[2.4.1.1], [2.4.2], [2.4.3], [2.6], [3.4], [3.5.1.1], May v Military rehabilitation and Compensation
[4.4.2.1], [6.1], [6.2], [6.2.2] Commission (2015) 233 FCR 397 [4.4.1],
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [4.4.3]
(2010) 241 CLR 390 [2.2.1], [4.4.1], [4.4.2.2] Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London v
Kowalski v Military Rehabilitation and Richard Henry Cox (1867) LR 2 HL 239 [2.2]
Compensation Commission (2010) 114 ALD McBain, Re; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops
8 [7.4] Conference (2001) 209 CLR 372 [2.4.1.1],
Ku-ring- gai Council v West [2017] NSWCA [2.4.1.2], [2.4.1.3], [3.1.1], [3.5.1.1], [3.5.3], [5.1],
54 [4.3.1] [5.2], [5.4]
Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR
(2011) 197 FCR 177 [3.3], [4.2.5.2] 178 [4.6]
McDonald v Director- General of Social Security
L & B Linings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of (1984) 6 ALD 6 [7.4]
New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 15 [4.2.4], McGovern v Ku-ring- gai Council (2008) 72
[4.4.2.2] NSWLR 504 [4.2.3]
Lam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural McGowan v Migration Agents Registration
Affairs (2006) 157 FCR 215 [4.2.2.4] Authority (2003) 129 FCR 118 [2.5.2]
Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533 [2.5.1.2] McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury
Lanham and Secretary, Department of Family (2006) 228 CLR 423 [7.6.1]
and Community Services, Re (2002) 67 ALD Mellifont v Attorney- General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR
173 [7.6.3] 289 [2.4.1.3]
Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage Miah see Minister for Immigration and
(2008) 174 FCR 14 [3.2], [3.3], [3.6], [4.3.1], [4.3.1] Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah, Re
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) Michael v Secretary, Department of Employment,
170 CLR 70 [4.2.3] Science and Training (2006) 42 AAR
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 488 [3.7.1]
251 CLR 196 [4.6] Mickovski v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd
Leppington Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Department (2012) 36 VR 456 [2.6.1]
of Administrative Services (1990) 20 ALD Mika Engineering Holdings Pty Ltd and
607 [7.6.3] Commissioner of Taxation, Re (2006) 92 ALD
Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579 [5.4] 688 [7.6.4.1], [7.6.5.1]
Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 [4.5] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend
Littlejohn and Department of Social Security, Re Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 [2.5.1], [4.1.2], [4.3.1],
(1989) 17 ALD 482 [7.6.3] [4.3.5], [4.5], [4.6]
Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment v
M v Home Office [1994] AC 377 [2.6.2.2] Peko-Wallsend (1987) 15 FCR 274 [2.6.2.3]
MacCormick v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Minister for Foreign Affairs v Lee (2014) 227 FCR
(1984) 158 CLR 622 [6.2.4.1] 279 [4.3.3]

XVI TABLE OF CASES
Minister for Health and Family Services v Jadwan Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v
Pty Ltd (1998) 89 FCR 478 [3.2] Mayer (1985) 157 CLR 290 [2.5.1.3]
Minister for Health v Nicholl Holdings Pty Ltd Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v
(2015) 231 FCR 539 [2.5.1.2] Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 [7.6.1]
Minister for Human Services and Health v Haddad Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
(1995) 38 ALD 204 [7.6.3] (1995) 183 CLR 273 [4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.4], [4.6]
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu
AMA16 [2017] FCAFC 136 [4.2.3] Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 [4.3], [4.3.1],
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v [4.4.2.1.2]
Eden (2016) 240 FCR 158 [4.5] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597 [2.4.1.3],
Hossain [2017] FCAFC 82 [3.4], [3.7.1] [6.2.2], [8.2.1]
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1 [4.5] v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 [1.2.1],
[4.2.1], [4.2.3]
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v
SZSRS (2014) 309 ALR 67 [4.3.1] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214 [4.2.2.2]
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v
SZSSJ (2016) 334 ALR 653 [4.2.2.3], [4.2.2.4] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs v Ozamanian (1996) 71 FCR 1 [2.5.1],
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v [2.5.1.2]
SZVFW [2017] FCAFC 33 [4.5]
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Affairs v Rajamanikkam (2002) 210 CLR
SZVFW [2017] HCA 191 [4.5] 222 [4.4.2.2], [4.4.3]
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326 [4.2.2.4], [4.3.3] v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 [3.2], [3.4],
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Khadgi [4.2.5.2], [4.3.1]
(2010) 190 FCR 248 [4.3], [4.3.1] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kumar Re; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198
(2009) 238 CLR 448 [4.2.2.3] ALR 59 [4.2.4], [4.3.1], [4.4.2.1.2], [4.4.2.2]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 [4.1.1], [4.3], Affairs, Re; Ex parte Cohen (2001) 177 ALR
[4.4.2.1.2], [4.5] 473 [2.4.1.2], [4.4.2]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Maman Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
(2012) 200 FCR 30 [3.7.1], [4.2.2.3] Re; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR ALR 407 [2.4.1.1]
(2011) 241 CLR 594 [4.2.4] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI Re; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 [3.4],
(2009) 259 ALR 429 [4.2.4] [3.5.3], [3.6], [4.2.2.2], [4.2.2.3]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
(2009) 238 CLR 627 [3.5.3], [4.2.5.2], [6.2.2] Re; Ex parte S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR
59 [3.5.3], [4.1.4], [4.2.4], [4.3.1], [4.4.2.1.2]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS
(2010) 243 CLR 164 [2.2.2], [4.3.1] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs v Huynh (2004) 139 FCR
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLSP 505 [4.3.1]
(2010) 187 FCR 362 [4.2.5.2], [4.4.2.2],
[4.4.2.1.2] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS 12 [4.4.2.2], [6.2.2]
(2010) 240 CLR 611 [4.4.2.1.2], [4.4.2.2]
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Applicants S134,
SZQHH (2012) 200 FCR 223 [4.2.3] Re (2003) 211 CLR 441 [3.2]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
(2013) 212 FCR 99 [4.1.2], [4.3.1], [4.4.2.1] Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam, Re (2003)
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v 214 CLR 1 [4.1.4], [4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.4], [4.3.3]
Conyngham (1986) 11 FCR 528 [3.5.3] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo Indigenous Affairs v SCAR (2003) 128 FCR
(1997) 191 CLR 559 [2.2.1] 553 [4.2.2.3]

TABLE OF CASES XVII
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd (2003)
Indigenous Affairs, Re; Ex parte Applicants 216 CLR 177 [2.5.1.4.2], [2.6.1], [2.7], [3.5.1.3],
S134 (2003) 211 CLR 441 [3.2] [4.3.3], [7.5.1.2]
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Nevistic v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Indigenous Affairs, Re; Ex parte Lam (2003) Affairs (1981) 34 ALR 639, 647 [7.6.3]
214 CLR 1 [2.2.2], [4.1.4]. [4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.4], New South Wales v Bardolph (1934) 52 CLR
[4.3.3] 455 [2.7]
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Nona v Barnes [2012] QSC 35 [2.5.1.4.1]
Indigenous Affairs, Re; Ex parte Palme (2003) North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
216 CLR 212 [4.2.5.2], [4.3], [6.2.4.1] Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 256 CLR
Minister for Immigration v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 569 [4.3], [4.6]
164 [2.2.2], [4.3.1], [4.2.1] North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc
Minister for Immigration, Local Government v Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146 [7.2.1]
and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD Northcoast Environmental Council Inc v Minister
13 [7.6.3] for Resources (1994) 55 FCR 492 [5.2]
Minister for Immigration, Local Government Northumberland case see R v Northumberland
and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic (1990) 21 FCR Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex
193 [4.3.3] parte Shaw
Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys
Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 260 [2.5.1.3] O’Halloran v Wood [2004] FCA 544 [3.3]
Minister for Local Government v South O’Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Victoria
Sydney City Council (2002) 55 NSWLR (1983) 153 CLR 1 [4.3.4]
381 [2.6.2.2] Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council
Minister of Indigenous Affairs v MJD Foundation [2017] EWCA Civ 71 [4.2.4]
Ltd [2017] FCAFC 37 [3.7.1] Ogle v Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41 [5.2]
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 CLR
Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 CLR 27 [5.2]
475 [4.2.2.3] Ortiz v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Momcilovic v R (2011) 280 ALR 221 [4.6] (2011) 224 FCR 583 [4.4.2.1.2]
Montreal Street Railway Co v Normandin [1917] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR
AC 170 [4.2.5.2] 72 [5.4]
Motor Trades Association of Australia Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice
Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Australian (2010) 241 CLR 320 [7.6.4.2]
Prudential Regulation Authority (2008) 169 Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69 [3.7.2],
FCR 483 [2.5.1.5] [3.7.3]
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR
OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission

601 [3.2] Council (2010) 270 ALR 542 [4.4.1], [4.4.3]
Murdaca and Australian Securities and Ozepulse Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture
Investments Commission, Re (2010) 118 ALD Fisheries and Forestry (2007) 163 FCR
202 [7.6.2], [7.6.3] 562 [4.2.2.1]
Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) Ozmanian v Minister for Immigration, Local
136 CLR 1 [4.3.1] Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 137
Murray v Native Title Tribunal (2002) 77 ALD ALR 103 [2.5.1.3]
96 [3.2]
MZXSA v Minister for Immigration and Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Citizenship (2010) 117 ALD 441 [4.4.2.1.2] Food [1968] AC 997 [2.6.2.2], [3.1.1], [4.3.1]
Palme case see Minister for Immigration and
NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Re; Ex
and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 470; parte Palme
(2005) 223 ALR 1 [4.2.2.3], [7.8.1] Palmer v Liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd
National Companies and Securities Commission (in Liq) [2017] HCA 5 [2.4.1.3]
v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld Corrective
296 [4.2.2.3] Services [2010] QCA 316 [2.5.1.4.1]
NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009)
Protection (2014) FCR 1 [2.5.1], [4.3], [4.3.1] 238 CLR 1 [2.6.2.2], [5.1]

XVIII TABLE OF CASES
Park Oh Ho v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159
Affairs (1989) 167 CLR 637 [3.1.1], [3.5.3] CLR 656 [2.5.1], [4.2.4]
Pattenden v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Punton v Ministry of Pensions and National
(2008) 175 FCR 1 [4.3.5] Insurance (No 2) [1964] 1 All ER 448 [3.5.1.5]
Perinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd
[2011] WASCA 217 [2.6.1] Qantas Airways Ltd and Deputy Commissioner of
Peverill v Meir (1989) 95 ALR 401 [2.5.1.2] Taxation (Western Australia), Re (1979) 2 ALD
291 [7.5.1.2]
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia
(2010) 243 CLR 319 [2.4.1.2], [2.4.2], QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave (No 2) (2010) 189 FCR
[2.5.1.4.1], [2.5.1.4.2], [3.5.1.3], [3.5.1.5], [4.2.1], 412 [2.5.1.4]
[4.3.5], [6.2.4.2] Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett (1988)
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia 84 ALR 615 [2.5.1.3]
(2011) 272 ALR 14 [2.7] Queensland v Central Queensland Land Council
Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Aboriginal Corporation (2002) 125 FCR
Border Protection (2015) 258 CLR 173 [3.4], 89 [2.5.1.3]
[4.3.3]
Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and
and Border Protection (2016) 257 CLR Commonwealth Affairs; Ex parte Abbasi [2003]
42 [2.4.1.2], [2.4.2] UKHRR 76 CA [2.6.2.3]
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v Secretary of
Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144 [4.4.2.1.2] State for the Home Department [2015] AC
945 [1.2.2.1]
Plaintiff M79/2012 v Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship (2013) 252 CLR 336 [4.3.2], R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of
[6.2.4.1] State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC
532 [4.6]
Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship (2012) 246 CLR 636 [4.1.3], R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd (1965) 113
[4.3.2], [4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.2] CLR 177 [4.3.4]
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte
Border Protection (2014) 254 CLR 28 [4.3.1] 2HD Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 45 [4.3.1]
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex
CLR 476 [2.2.2], [2.4.1], [2.4.1.1], [2.4.2], parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd
[2.5.1.5], [3.5.3], [3.7.1], [3.7.3], [4.2.2.2], [4.6], (1953) 88 CLR 100, 120. [4.4.2]
[6.1], [6.2.2], [6.2.3], [6.2.4.2], [6.2.4.4], [7.2.1] R v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Ex
Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration parte Hook [1976] 1 WLR 1052 [4.5]
and Border Protection (2015) 255 CLR R v Bolton (1841) 1 QB66 [133 ER 1054] [3.4]
231 [3.5.1.3] R v Civil Service Board, ex parte Cunningham
Post Office Agents Assn Ltd v Australian Postal [1991] 4 All ER 310 [4.2.4]
Commission (1988) 84 ALR 563 [2.4.1.2] R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration
Powell v Department of Immigration and Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969)
Multicultural Affairs (1998) 53 ALD 122 CLR 546 [4.2.3]
228 [7.6.1] R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust)
Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 [4.2.4] Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389 [3.5.1.3], [3.6]
Presmint Pty Ltd and Australian Fisheries R v Connell; Ex parte The Hetton Bellbird Collieries
Management Authority, Re (1995) 39 ALD Ltd (No 2) (1944) 69 CLR 407 [4.4.2.1.2]
625 [7.6.3] R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting parte Lain [1967] 2 QB 864 [2.6], [2.6.1],
Authority (1996) 68 FCR 455 [2.4.2] [3.5.1.1]
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey
Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 [2.4.2], [3.3], Club; Ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER
[3.4], [3.5.2], [4.2.5.2], [6.2.2], [6.2.4.1] 853 [2.6.1], [4.6]
Public Service Association (SA) v Federated R v Electricity Commissioners; Ex parte London
Clerks’ Union (1991) 173 CLR 132 [6.1] Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd
Public Service Association of South Australia Inc [1924] 1 KB 171 [3.5.1.1]
v Industrial Relations Commission of South R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70
Australia (2012) 249 CLR 398 [2.4.3], [6.2.4.2] CLR 598 [6.2.1]

TABLE OF CASES XIX
R v Independent Broad-Based Anti- Corruption Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary,
Commissioner (2016) 256 CLR 459 [4.6] Department of Human Services and Health
R v Inner London Education Authority; Ex parte (1995) 56 FCR 50 [5.2]
Ali (1990) 2 Admin LR 822 [3.5.1.3] Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 [4.3.1]
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Roche Products Pty Ltd v National Drugs and
Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 [1.3], [7.1], Poisons Schedule Committee (2007) 163 FCR
[7.2.1] 451 [2.5.1.3]
R v Leeds Crown Court; Ex parte Bradford Chief Rodger v De Gelder [2011] NSWCA 97 [3.5.1.1]
Constable [1975] QB 314 [3.1.1] Rudd and Minister for Transport and Regional
R v Lord President of the Privy Council; Ex parte Services, Re (2001) 65 ALD 296 [7.5.2]
Page [1993] AC 682 [3.4] Ruddock v Taylor (2005) 222 CLR 612 [3.1.1]
R v Muirhead and Bracegirdle; Ex parte Attorney- Ruddock v Vardarlis (2001) 110 FC R 491 (Tampa
General [1942] SASR 226 [3.1.1] case) [2.6.2.2]
R v Murray and Cormie; Ex parte The
Commonwealth (1916) 22 CLR 437 [2.4.1.2] SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor (1949) 77 CLR and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR
387 [6.2.1] 294 [3.4], [4.2.5.2]
R v North and East Devon Health Authority; Ex Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 [4.2.2.1], (2010) 241 CLR 252 [4.2.2.1], [4.2.2.2],
[4.3.3] [4.2.2.2], [4.6]
R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2000) 106 FCR
Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 KB 554 [2.5.2]
338 [3.5.1.1] Salerno v National Crime Authority (1997) 75 FC R
R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; Ex parte 133 [2.5.1.4]
Datafin Plc [1987] QB 815 [2.6.1], [2.7], Samrein Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage
[3.5.2] and Drainage Board (1982) 41 ALR
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 467 [4.3.2]
Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 [4.2.4] Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 [9.7.5]
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Save our Suburbs (SOS) NSW Incorporated v
Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] Electoral Commissioner of New South Wales
1 QB 26 [2.6.2.2] (2002) 55 NSWLR 642 [3.5.1.3]
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission
Ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407 [4.3.3] [2006] NSWCA 298 [4.4.1]
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; SCAS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Ex parte Simms [200] 2 AC 115 [4.6] Affairs [2002] FCAFC 397 [4.3.2]
R v Somerset County Council; Ex parte Fewings Schielske v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
[1995] 1 All ER 513 [2.6.2.2] Affairs (1988) 84 ALR 719 [4.3.2]
R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council Schwennesen v Minister for Environmental and
(1981) 151 CLR 170 [2.5.1], [2.6.2.2], [3.5.1.1], Resource Management (2010) 176 LGERA
[4.3], [4.3.2] 1 [2.5.1.3]
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex Screen Australia v Eme Productions No 1 Pty Ltd
parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228 [3.5.1.3] (2012) 200 FCR 282 [4.2.2.2], [4.2.5.2], [4.3.1],
Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner [4.4.1], [4.4.3]
of Taxation (2010) 189 FCR 189 [2.5.1.4.1] Sean Investments Pty Ltd v Mackellar (1981) 38
Reece v Webber (2011) 192 FC R 254 [4.2.3], ALR 363 [4.3.1], [4.3.5]
[4.3.1] Secretary, Department of Social Security v Alvaro
Refugee Review Tribunal, Re; Ex parte Aala (2000) (1994) 50 FCR 213 [4.3.5]
204 CLR 82 [2.4.1.1], [2.4.2], [3.4], [3.5.3], Seiffert v The Prisoners Review Board [2011]
[3.6], [3.7], [4.2.5.1], [5.3], [5.4] WASCA 148 [4.2.2.2], [4.2.5.2], [4.3.1], [4.3.3],
Rendell v Release on Licence Board (1987) 10 [6.2.3]
NSWLR 499 [4.3.3] Sew Eurodrive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs,
Reynolds v Tasmanian Heritage Council (2011) 246 Re (1994) 35 ALD 790 [7.5.2]
FLR 454 [2.5.1.4.1] SFGB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Riddell v Secretary, Department of Social Security and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 77 ALD
(1993) 42 FCR 443 [4.3.4] 402 [4.4.2.2]

XX TABLE OF CASES
Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and
(Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006)
379 [2.4.3], [2.6] 228 CLR 152 [4.2.2.3]
Sharpe and Department of Social Security, Re SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
(1988) 14 ALD 681 [7.6.3] (2007) 235 ALR 609 [3.6], [4.2.5.1]
Shell v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1930) SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and
44 CLR 530 [7.1] Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006)
Sherlock v Lloyd (2010) 27 VR 434 [4.2.4], 150 FC R 214 [4.2.2.2]
[4.2.5.2] SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189 [4.2.2.3],
(2008) 235 CLR 286 [7.6.4.2] [4.3.2]
Shop Distributive and Allied Employees SZGME v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Association v Minister for Industrial Affairs (2008) 168 FCR 487 [3.6]
(SA) (1995) 183 CLR 552 [5.2] SZKUO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border (2009) 180 FCR 438 [3.7], [3.7.1]
Protection [2017] FCAFC 69 [3.6] SZMDS case see Minister for Immigration and
Simpson Design Associates Pty Ltd v Industrial Citizenship v SZMDS
Court of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA SZMWQ v Minister for Immigration and
316 [6.2.4.1] Citizenship (2010) 187 FCR 109 [4.4.2.2]
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border SZOOR v Minister for Immigration and
Protection (2014) 231 FCR 437 [4.5] Citizenship (2012) 202 FCR 1, [2012] FCAFC
Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 58 [4.4.2.1.2]
736 [3.7] SZQJH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Smoker v Pharmacy Restructuring Authority (2012) 126 ALD 488 [4.2.1]
(1994) 53 FCR 287 [4.3.4] SZUWX v Minister for Immigration and Border
Solution 6 Holdings Ltd v Industrial Relations Protection [2015] FCA 1389 [3.4]
Commission of NSW (2004) 60 NSWLR SZVFW [2017] FCAFC 33 [4.5]
558 [3.3]
South Australia v O’Shea (1987) 163 CLR Tampa case see Ruddock v Vardarlis
378 [2.6.2.3], [4.2.2.3] Tang case see Griffith University v Tang
South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc v Minister for
1 [6.2.4.4] Resources (1995) 55 FCR 516 [5.2]
SRRRRR v Commissioner of Taxation, Re (2008) Telstra Corp Ltd v Kendall (1995) 55 FCR
100 ALD 690 [7.6.1] 221 [4.3.4]
State of NSW v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118 [3.7] The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Economic
State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes Regulation Authority [2014] WASC 346 [4.5]
[2013] NSWCA 257 [4.4.3] Thompson v Ludwig (1991) 37 IR 437 [4.2.5.1]

Stead v State Government Insurance Commission Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 [4.3.1],
(1986) 161 CLR 141 [4.2.5.1] [4.3.5]
Stewart v Ronalds (2009) 76 NSWLR 99 [2.6.1], Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining
[2.6.2.3] NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 [4.4.2.1.1]
Stoljarev v Australian Fisheries Management Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara
Authority (1995) 39 ALD 517 [7.6.3] [2017] NSWCA 9 [4.3.1]
Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Town Investments v Department of Environment
Government [1979] 1 WLR 1281 [2.7] [1978] AC 359 [2.6.2.2]
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd
383 [7.6.3] (2006) 66 NSWLR 185 [7.2.1]
Sunchen v Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation Truth About Motorways v Macquarie (2000) 200
(2010) 264 ALR 447 [4.4.2.2] CLR 591 [2.4.1.3], [5.1], [5.4]
Sunshine Coast Broadcasters Ltd v Duncan (1988) Tuite v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1993) 40
83 ALR 121 [4.3.3] FCR 483 [4.4.1]
SZAYW v Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) United States Tobacco Co v Minister for Consumer
229 ALR 423 [8.3.5] Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 520 [5.4]

TABLE OF CASES XXI
VAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 [4.2.3]
and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117 [4.3.1] Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568 [4.2.3], Protection (2015) 257 CLR 22 [3.3], [6.2.2]
[4.2.5.1] West Lakes Ltd v State of South Australia (1980)
Vanstone v Clark (2005) 47 FC R 299 [4.5] 25 SASR 389 [2.7]
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 Wetzel v District Court of New South Wales (1998)
CLR 439 [4.4.3] 43 NSWLR 687 [4.3.3]
Victoria v Master Builders’ Association of Victoria Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR
[1995] 2 VR 121 [2.6.2.2] 447 [4.5]
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal
Ltd v Dignan (1941) 46 CLR 73 [8.4.1] Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR
Vietnam Veterans’ Affairs Association of 298 [2.5.1.4.1], [2.5.2]
Australian (NSW Branch Inc) v Cohen (1996) Williams v Commonwealth [No 1] (2012) 248 CLR
70 FCR 419 [2.4.1.2] 156 [2.6.2.2]
Visa International Service Association v Reserve Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak
Bank of Australia (2003) 131 FCR 300 [4.2.4] (2013) 252 CLR 480 [4.2.5.2]
Vitaz v Westfarm (NSW) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA Witheford and Department of Foreign Affairs, Re
254 [3.6], [4.2.5.1] (1983) 5 ALD 534 [7.6.3]
Woods and Secretary, Department of Education,
Walker v New South Wales Bar Association [2016] Science and Training, Re (2007) 94 ALD
FCA 799 [3.5.1.5] 265 [7.5.1.2]
Ward and Department of Industry and Commerce, Woolworths v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61
Re (1983) 8 ALD 324 [7.7] NSWLR 707 [6.2.4.3]
Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission
(NSW) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492 [4.3.1] X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 92 [4.6]
54 [2.5.1], [4.4.1], [4.4.2]
Watson v Australian Community Pharmacy Yamirr v Australian Telecommunications
Authority (2011) 284 ALR 293 [4.4.2.2] Corporation (1990) 96 ALR 739 [3.5.1.3]
Wattmaster Alco Pty Ltd v Button (1986) 13 FCR YL v Birmingham City Council [2008] 1 AC
253 [3.3], [3.5.2] 95 [2.6.1]

TABLE OF STATUTES
COMMONWEALTH Acts Interpretation Act s 3(2) [2.5.1]

1901 [1.2.2.2], [4.1.1] s 3(3) [2.5.1.2], [7.5.1.1]
Australian Constitution 1901 1
s 33 [3.7.1] s 3(5) [2.5.1]
s 51 [7.2.2]
s 34A [4.3.5] s 5 [2.5.1] [3.2], [3.3], [7.5.1.1]
s 61 [2.6.2.2], [2.6.2.3],
[3.5.3] s 34AA [4.3.5] s 5(1)(b) [3.2], [4.1.1],
s 71 [7.2.1], [7.2.2] s 34AB [4.3.5] [4.1.2], [4.2.5.2]
s 72 [7.2.1] Administrative Appeals Tribunal s 5(1)(c) [3.4], [4.3.5]
Act 1975 (‘AAT Act’) [1.3], s 5(1)(d) [3.4], [4.3.5], [4.5]
s 73 [2.3.1], [2.4.3]
[2.5.1], [4.2.5.2], [7.5.1.1] s 5(1)(f) [2.5.1], [3.2],
s 73(ii) [2.4.3], [6.1], [7.3]
s 2A(b) [8.2.4] [3.5.2], [4.4.1]
s 75 [2.1], [5.1]
s 2A(b)– (d) [7.4] s 5(1)(h) [4.1.2], [4.4.1],
s 75(i) [2.4.2]
s 7 [7.1] [4.4.2.2]
s 75(iii) [2.3.1]; [2.4.1.2],
s 25(1)(a) [7.5.1] s 5(2)(a) [4.3.1]
[2.4.2], [2.5.2], [3.3],
[3.5.3] s 25(5) [7.5.1.1] s 5(2)(b) [4.3.1]
s 75(v) [1.3], [1.4], [2.2.2], s 27 [7.5.2] s 5(2)(c) [4.3.2]
[2.3.1], [2.4.1], [2.4.1.1], s 29(2) [7.4] s 5(2)(d) [4.3.2]
[2.4.1.2], [2.4.1.3], [2.4.2], s 28 [4.2.4], [7.8.1] s 5(2)(e) [4.3.4]
[2.4.3], [2.5.1.2], [2.5.1.5], s 33 [7.4] s 5(2)(f) [4.3.3]
[2.5.2], [2.6], [2.7], [3.3], s 34 [7.4] s 5(2)(g) [4.5]
[3.5.3], [4.1.1], [4.2], [5.1], s 39 [7.4] s 5(3) [2.5.1], [4.1.2],
[6.1], [6.2], [6.2.1], [6.2.2], [4.4.2.2]
s 42D [7.6.1]
[6.2.3], [6.2.4.1], [6.2.4.2],
s 43 [7.6.1] s 5(3)(a) [4.4.2.2]
[6.2.4.3], [6.2.4.4], [6.3],
[6.4], [7.2.1], [7.2.2], [7.3], s 43 [7.6.1], [7.6.4.1] s 5(3)(b) [4.4.2.2]

[7.5.1.1], [7.5.1.2], [8.4.3], s 44 [3.5.1.1], [4.4.1], , [7.3], s 6 [2.5.1], [3.2], [3.3],
[10.1.3.1] [7.6.4.2] [7.5.1.1]
s 77(iii) [2.5.3], [7.3] s 44(7) [7.6.4.2] s 6(1)(c) [4.3.5]
Chapter I [2.4.1.2], [7.2.1] s 51(a), (b) [7.5.1.2] s 6(1)(d) [4.3.5]
Chapter II [2.4.1.2], [7.2.1] s 59 [7.2.1] s 6(1)(f) [4.4.1]
Chapter III [1.3], [1.4], Pt V [7.1] s 6(2)(a) [4.3.1]
[2.4.1.2], [2.4.1.3], Administrative Decisions s 6(2)(b) [4.3.1]
[2.5.1.4.1], [4.6], [7.1], (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s 6(2)(c) [4.3.2]
[7.2.1], [7.2.2], [7.7], (‘ADJR Act’)2 s 6(2)(d) [4.3.2]
[8.3.4] s 3(1) [2.5.1], [2.5.1.3] s 6(2)(e) [4.3.4]
1 General references to the Constitution are too numerous to usefully list. Please see specific sections, or
consult index for topics.
2 General references to the ADJR Act are too numerous to usefully list. Please see specific sections, or consult
index for topics.

TABLE OF STATUTES XXIII
s 6(2)(g) [4.5] s 3(2)(a) [9.1] s 7 [8.4.3]

s 7 [2.5.1] s 24AA(1)(a)(i) [9.6.4] s 8(2) [8.4.3]
s 13 [2.5.1], [4.2.4] s 33 [9.7.2] s 8(3) [8.4.3]
s 16 [2.5.1.2], [3.2], [3.3] s 37 [9.7.2], [9.8] s 8(4) [8.4.3]
s 16(1) [3.5.2] s 38 [9.2], [9.7.2], [9.7.4] s 8(6)– (8) [8.4.3]
s 16(1)(a) [3.3], [3.5.2] s 47C [9.2], [9.8] s 10 [8.4.3]
s 16(1)(b) [3.5.2] s 47F [9.7.1] s 15K [8.4.3]
s 16(1)(c) [3.5.2] s 47F(3) [9.7.1] s 17 [8.4.3]
s 16(1)(d) [3.5.2] s 58(5) [7.6.1] s 49 [8.4.3]
Schedule 1 [2.5.1] s 89K [9.6.3] s 44 [8.4.3]
Schedule 2 [4.2.4] s 93A(2) [9.4] s 57A [8.4.3]
Schedule 3 [2.5.1] Part II [9.4] Legislative Instruments Act
Archives Act 1983 [9.7.3] Freedom of Information 2003 [8.4.3]
Auditor- General Act Amendment (Reform) Act Migration Act 1958 [2.4.1.1],
1997 [8.4.5] 1982 [9.3] [2.4.1.2], [2.5.1.5], [3.7.1],
s 8 [8.4.5] Freedom of Information [4.1.2], [4.2.2.2], [4.2.3],
(Removal of Conclusive [4.4.2.1.2], [4.4.3], [4.5], [6.2.2],
s 50 [8.4.5]
Certificates and Other [6.2.4.2], [6.2.4.3], [6.3]
Australian Information
Measures) Act 2009 ss 51A(1) [4.2.2.2]
Commissioner Act
[9.6.1] s 189 [3.1.1]
2010 [9.3], [9.4]
Freedom of Information s 357A(1) [4.2.2.2]
s 7 [9.6.2], [9.4]
Amendment (Reform) Act s 422B [4.2.2.2]
Corporations Act 2001
2010 [9.3]
[2.5.1.4.1] s 422B(1) [4.2.2.2]
Health Insurance Amendment
Crimes Act 1914 s 434A [4.2.2.2]
(Professional Services Review)
s 424 [2.5.1.4.1] s 474 [3.7.3]
Act 2012 (Cth) [4.2.5.2]
Environment Protection and s 476 [2.5.1.5]; [2.5.2]
Human Rights (Parliamentary
Biodiversity Conservation Scrutiny) Act 2011 [4.6], s 501 [3.1.1]
Act 1999 [5.2], [5.4] [8.4.3] s 503A(1) [6.2.4.4]
Family Law Act 1975 [4.3.1] Income Tax Assessment Ombudsman Act 1976 [1.3],
Federal Court Act 1976 [1.3] Act 1936 [8.3.1]
Freedom of Information Act s 175 [6.2.4.1] s 3BA [2.7], [8.3.4]
1982 (‘FOI Act’) [1.3], [8.3.5], s 175A [6.2.4.1] s 3(4B) [2.7]
[9.1], [9.2], [9.3], [9.4], [9.5], s 5(3A) [8.3.4]
177(1) [6.2.4.1]
[9.6], [9.7]
s 6(1)(a) [8.3.3]
Judiciary Act 1903 [2.1], [2.3],

s 3 [9.6.1], [9.8]
[2.4.1], [2.5.1], [2.5.2], [2.5.3] s 6(1)(b)(ii) [8.3.3]
s 3(1)(b) [9.4]
s 39 [7.3] s 6(1)(b)(iii) [8.3.3]
s 3(3) [9.4]
s 39(1A)(c) [2.3]; [2.3.1]; s 6(2) [8.3.3]
s 3(4) [9.4] [2.4.1], [2.4.1.2], [2.4.2], s 6(3) [8.3.3]
s 4(1) [9.6] [2.5.1], [2.5.1.2], [2.5.2], s 6(12) [8.3.4]
s 6C [9.6.5] [2.5.3], [2.6.1]
s 8(2) [8.3.5]
s 8 [4.3.3] s 39B [1.3], [2.1], [2.4.1],
s 8(4) [8.3.5]
s 8A [9.4], [9.5] [2.4.1.1], [2.5.1], [3.5.3],
s 8(5) [8.3.5]
s 9 [4.3.3] [5.2], [7.5.1.2], [8.4.3]
s 15(1) [8.3.6]
s 10 [4.3.3], [9.4] s 39B(1) [2.3]; [2.3.1],
[2.4.1], [2.4.1.1], [2.4.1.2], s 15(1)(a)(iii) [8.3.4], [8.3.6],
s 11 [9.6.3] [8.4.3]
[2.4.3], [2.5.1], [2.5.1.2],
s 11(1)(b) [9.6. 5] s 15(1)(a)(v) [8.3.6]
[2.5.1.5], [2.5.2], [2.5.3],
s 11(2) [9.6.3] [6.2.4.1] s 15(2) [8.3.8.1]
s 11(3) [9.8] s 39B(1A)(c) [2.5.2] s 15(2)(d) [8.3.4], [8.3.6],
s 11B(4)) [9.8] s 44(2A) [2.4.1.1] [8.4.3]
s 15 [9.6.3] Legislation Act 2003 s 35 [8.3.5]
s 24AA(1)(a)(ii)) [9.6.5] (‘LA’) [2.5.1.3], [8.4.3] s 35A [8.3.5]

XXIV TABLE OF STATUTES
Public Interest Disclosure Act NORTHERN TERRITORY s 38(1) [4.6]

2013 [9.7.4] s 38(2) [4.6]
Crown Proceedings Act 1993
Taxation Administration [3.5.1.4] s 39(2)(b) [4.6]
Act 1953 Corporations (Victoria) Act
Part IVC [6.2.4.1] 1990 [2.5.1.4.2]
Trade Practices Act 1974
QUEENSLAND
[2.6.1] Griffith University Act
1998 [2.5.1.4.1] UNITED KINGDOM
Wheat Marketing Act 1989
[2.5.1.4.2] Judicial Review Act Bill of Rights 1689 [2.6.2.2]
s 57(3B) [2.5.1.4.2] 1991 [2.5.3] Human Rights Act
S 4(B) [2.5.3] 1998 [2.6.1], [4.6]
s 6(3)(b) [2.6.1]
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL
TERRITORY SOUTH AUSTRALIA s 6(5) [2.6.1]
Administrative Decisions Crown Proceedings Act 1992

(Judicial Review) Act [3.5.1.4]
1989 [2.5.3], [5.2]
Crown Proceedings Act 1992 TASMANIA
(repealed) [3.5.1.4] Crown Proceedings Act 1993
Human Rights Act 2004 [4.6] [3.5.1.4]
s 28 [4.6] Homes Act 1935 [2.5.1.4.1]
s 30(1) [4.6] Judicial Review Act
s 30(2) [4.6] 2000 [2.5.1.4.1], [2.5.3]
s 32 [4.6]
s 40B [4.6] VICTORIA
Administrative Law Act 1978
NEW SOUTH WALES s 10 [3.5.1.1]
Environmental Planning and Charter of Rights and
Assessment Act 1979 [5.4] Responsibilities Act
Protection of the Environment 2006 [4.6], [8.3.6]
Operations Act 1997 [5.4] s 7 [4.6]
Supreme Court Act 1970 s 32(1) [4.6]
s 69(4) [3.5.1.1] s 36 [4.6]

CHAPTER 1
WHY DOES ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW MATTER?
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Some key ideas 2
1.2.1 Three kinds of accountability 3
1.2.2 The merits/legality distinction 4
1.3 Some history 7
1.4 Looking ahead 13
1.5 Structure of the book 16
1.1 INTRODUCTION
We live in an administrative state. This means that the way in which government power is
exercised is predominantly through ‘administrative’— rather than ‘legislative’ or ‘judicial’—
power. Administrative law is the body of law which is of most direct relevance to the
administrative state for the reason that its central (albeit not exclusive) focus is on the legal
regulation of executive branch of government: the ‘administration’. Administrative law is

about how administrative power is constituted and controlled by law. Studying administrative
law thus enables us to ask: what is the law’s contribution to the constitution and control of
public or governmental power in contemporary conditions?
Administrative law is not the only vantage point from which to study the administrative
state. Public administration, political science, political theory, economics and sociology all
provide alternative lenses. The engagement of these other disciplines with the administrative
state makes clear that not all means of controlling administrative power involve specifically
legal modes of control. In practice much control of administrative power is undertaken by
the power-holders themselves (for example, through managerial and bureaucratic controls
internal to administrative institutions). Administrative law controls are, in this sense, merely
a subset of a range of broader accountability techniques.
Administrative law controls do, however, tend to have certain distinctive features. Each
part of administrative law—whether judicial review, an appeal to a merits review tribunal, an
ombudsman’s investigation, or some other accountability mechanism— involves a process
Cane, P., McDonald, L., & Rundle, K. (2018). Principles of administrative law. ProQuest Ebook Central <a
onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>

2 PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
which empowers one unit in the overall scheme of government to exercise some form of legal
control over another. Legal controls on administrative action are thus in this way external to
the decision-makers who are being supervised or kept to account. This external feature is
important, and might helpfully be understood by reference to the two propositions that lie at
the core of the traditional, tripartite idea of the separation of powers. The first proposition is
that we should not allow too much power to be concentrated in the hands of any one individual
or institution. This is why there are three broadly distinguished branches of government—
the legislature, the executive and the judiciary— each with broadly distinctive functions. The
second is that those who exercise power should be subject to some form of external check.
Judicial review of executive action is the paradigmatic instance of such external review,
but other institutions such as administrative tribunals and ombudsmen can also be external
to particular government agencies and departments, even though they are technically part of
the ‘executive branch’. Indeed, this point serves to illustrate how the idea that administrative
law operates upon the activities of the executive ‘branch’, though a convenient description,
should not be understood narrowly. The executive branch of government is in fact composed
of a multiplicity of institutions and actors, all involved in different ways in the ‘administration’
of government power.
1.2 SOME KEY IDEAS

The presence of the word ‘principles’ in the title of the book indicates that our aim in the
chapters that follow is to provide a large-scale rather than a fine-grained map of the terrain
of administrative law. What actually is administrative law? What exactly does it do, and how?
Why do we need it? What role, if any, do the norms, principles, processes, and institutions of
administrative law play in making the relationship between government and the governed
legitimate?
We have given this introductory chapter the title ‘Why Does Administrative Law Matter?’
to encourage critical reflection on these questions throughout the discussions to follow.

Without doubt, administrative law is a complicated field of study. To navigate it requires
a certain willingness to keep in view a host of interconnections between law, politics, our
constitutional order, our legal institutions, the position of those charged with the actual
exercise of government power, and, of course, the position of those who are ultimately subject
to that power. Still, amid those complex interconnections, we think it is important to identify
some key distinctions, concepts and relationships. The first concerns the three different kinds
of control or accountability that bear upon the scope and function of administrative law: legal,
bureaucratic, and political.1
1 This approach is borrowed from P Cane, Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison
(Cambridge University Press, 2016). The terms ‘control’ and ‘accountability’ may be given different
meanings, but for present purposes we use them as synonyms.

CHAPTER 1 WHY DOES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MATTER? 3
1.2.1 Three kinds of accountability

Legal accountability encompasses modes of control that focus on whether or not administrative
power is exercised in accordance with law. It is the mode of accountability that is the
primary focus of this book. To understand the nature, function, and scope of legal modes
of accountability, therefore, it is necessary to consider what exactly is signalled by the term
‘legal’ or ‘law’ in administrative law. We return to this point below. For now we will simply
observe that modes of legal accountability include the body of legal norms applied by
courts in the exercise of their judicial review jurisdiction, as well as legal norms applied by
bureaucratic institutions in their exercise of administrative power. The latter include merits
review tribunals as well as complaints and investigation bodies that have been constituted by
legislation and whose activities are governed by law.
Bureaucratic accountability is the term that might broadly be used to capture modes of
accountability within the executive branch of government. These will include myriad ‘internal’
accountability structures as well as mechanisms for the independent ‘external’ review of
government decision-making that— as is the case with merits review tribunals— nonetheless
remain located within the executive branch of government. This rough description alone
should be sufficient to indicate that, at least with respect to merits review tribunals, the line
between ‘legal’ and ‘bureaucratic’ modes of accountability will often be a blurred one.
Political accountability has a very different focus to legal and bureaucratic modes of
accountability that concentrate on individual review and grievances. Modes of political
accountability focus on policy objectives and outcomes of administration. It is important,
however, not to overdraw the contrast. Understanding how political modes of accountability
arise and how they work is important for a well-rounded picture of the administrative state and
the methods through which its activities are controlled. This understanding is also specifically
important to a study of administrative law because of how legal modes of accountability
operate in a context of awareness of political modes of accountability. For example, a court
conducting judicial review of an instance of administrative action (about which we say more
below) may emphasise statutory rules that require notice of such action to be tabled before
the parliament. Noting the presence of this mechanism of political accountability, the court
will often adapt its own role as a site of legal accountability accordingly.2 In this way, a legal
form of accountability may be calibrated by reference to the existence and perceived efficacy
of other modes of accountability.
The short point, then, is that it is not possible to grasp the characteristics and functions
of each of the various modes of legal, bureaucratic and political accountability without an
understanding of their relationship to each other. It is also not possible to evaluate why
administrative law matters without thinking about how its various mechanisms operate
within a wider context of alternate modes of accountability (see further 10.1.3.2). This context
2 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507, 539 serves as an interesting
case in point (see 4.2.3).

4 PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
in turn bears upon another key idea that is foundational to work of administrative law. This is
the distinction between the merits of administrative action and its legality.
1.2.2 The merits/legality distinction

1.2.2.1 The ‘merits’ of administrative action
Discussions in the chapters to follow will refer repeatedly to the accepted idea that the ‘merits’
of a given instance of administrative action is for the executive to determine. The ‘merits’
refers to the considerations bearing upon why a given administrative action is considered to
be the preferable one in the legal and factual circumstances.
The requirement that the executive determine the ‘merits’ of administrative action
is closely associated with the fact that many statutory powers vested in administrative
decision-makers will be in the form of a discretion. The conferral of discretionary powers on
government bureaucracies is a standard response to complexity and uncertainty. Discretion
gives— and is intended to give— administrators a degree of freedom of choice. This holds
across the two main kinds of discretion that arise in the administrative state: rule-making and
decision-making. Rule-making refers to the making of ‘secondary’ or ‘delegated’ legislation
and policies through which the primary legislation enacted by parliament is administered (see
8.4.3). It is undertaken principally by the executive arm of government. This is considered
appropriate in light of time and resource constraints that make the parliament unsuited to
the task. But it will inevitably see those executive actors engaged in rule-making exercising
discretion. The still more typical example of discretion is that involved when administrators
apply pre- existing rules to make individual administrative decisions. The need for discretion
here arises because although rules can confer more or less choice upon an administrator—
that is, the rule can be framed in a way that ‘structures’ those choices— a rule cannot itself
determine how it is to be applied to particular facts.3 Is the applicant for a fishing licence a
‘fit and proper person’ to hold such a licence, as specified by the relevant statutory criteria?
Does the person identified as a possible candidate for cancellation of their visa on character
grounds pass the statutory ‘character test’ on which their visa depends? Such are just two
examples of administrative action, of an inherently discretionary character, with respect to
which a range of outcomes could plausibly follow depending on the facts. Someone, however,
ultimately has to make the ‘call’. This, at its simplest, is what is meant by determining the
‘merits’ of administrative action.
To be sure, discretion potentially carries with it certain costs. These include the risk
of exploitation, arbitrariness and uncertainty. But discretion can also achieve certain
benefits, such as flexibility, consistency and responsiveness. Either way, it is impossible (and
would be unwise) to eliminate discretion entirely. It is an important part of the package of
administrative law. That said, we will see in our discussion of the ‘norms’ of administrative
law in Chapter 4 that, even though discretion lies at the heart of the exercise of many or
3 See R Goodin, ‘Welfare, Rights and Discretion’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 240, 237– 9.

CHAPTER 1 WHY DOES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MATTER? 5
even most administrative powers, it presents special kinds of challenges to the court’s task of
checking the ‘legality’ of that exercise.
The idea that it is the executive’s job to attend to the ‘merits’ of administrative action, while
it is the judiciary’s job to supervise its ‘legality’ signals something very important. The merits/
legality distinction reflects not only a particular institutional division of labour, but also, in
Australia, a constitutional story about who, according to the Australian version of separation of
powers, is to perform which role, and why.4 At the core of the prescription that the ‘merits’ of
administrative action are for the executive to decide is the observation that, through enacting
legislation that empowers administrative officials to act, the democratically elected legislature
has decided to give the executive that task. Exercising those powers is thus the executive’s
responsibility—and no one else’s—to discharge. It follows from this that the task of the judiciary
is equally confined. The judiciary must perform the role, and only the role, that has been
assigned to it, namely to check the ‘legality’ of administrative action. Moreover—and this is the
crucial point—in performing that role, the judiciary must ensure that it does not encroach on the
role that has been assigned to the executive, namely its responsibility for deciding the ‘merits’.
In Australian law, these propositions are framed at the Commonwealth level by reference to the
strict separation of judicial and executive power in the Constitution (see further 2.2.2).
1.2.2.2 The ‘legality’ of administrative action

What, then, do courts have in view when determining the ‘legality’ of administrative action
through ‘judicial review’? Put very simply, when conducting judicial review the court might
determine the ‘legality’ of administrative action by reference to four different kinds of legal
material. First, of course, there is the Constitution. The executive branch in its administration
of government power must stay within its constitutionally assigned role. But second and of
foremost importance, there is the statute (the legislation) that the executive is charged with
‘administering’ in the given instance. This statute will explicitly repose certain powers in
administrative decision-makers that, within the set legal boundaries, they are required to
exercise. Importantly, this legislative source of the legal authority that is vested in administrative
decision-makers is not limited to the ‘primary’ legislation enacted by parliament. It will also
include any (variously described) regulations, rules, by-laws, legislative instruments, delegated
or subordinate legislation enacted by the executive under powers specifically delegated to it
under that primary legislation. Though made by the executive rather than the legislature,
these forms of ‘mini-legislation’ are also recognised as legally binding on administrators, and
so equally form part of the ‘legality’ mix.
The third source of law to which the judiciary refers when supervising the legality of
administrative action are the principles of statutory interpretation. These, too, are ‘law’ because
they have been developed by both the common law and statute.5 The importance of the
4 Recourse to the separation of powers principle to delimit the boundaries of judicial review can also be seen
in other jurisdictions: cf R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] AC 945,
965, [22].
5 For example, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:

Full Chapter Principles of Administrative Law 3Rd Edition Peter Cane Leighton Mcdonald Kristen Rundle PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Principles of Administrative Law 3Rd Edition Peter Cane Leighton Mcdonald Kristen Rundle PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principles of Administrative Law 3rd

Edition Peter Cane Leighton Mcdonald

Administrative Law: Principles and Advocacy 4th Edition

Principles of Fermentation Technology 3rd Edition Peter

Administrative Law First Edition. Edition Cann

The principles of the law of restitution 3rd Edition

Craig: Administrative Law 9th Edition Paul P. Craig

Glaucoma Medical Therapy Principles and Management 3rd

Cane Jean Toomer

Due process of law beyond the state : requirements of

Principles of Administrative Law

New to this edition

Copyright © 2018. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

visit us at: oup.com.au or

CAN_PAL_05246_CVR_SI.indd All Pages 4/1/18 1:46 pm

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 1 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 2 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

Peter Cane, Leighton McDonald and

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 3 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 4 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 7 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

In the context of the delivery of university-level administrative law courses, we are

performance of government functions (and therefore is important to a well-rounded

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 8 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 9 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

A v Independent Commission Against Corruption Antipova v Minister for Immigration and

Attorney- General (NSW) v 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 10 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 11 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 12 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 13 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 14 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 15 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 16 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 17 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 18 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 19 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

[2013] NSWCA 257 [4.4.3] Thompson v Ludwig (1991) 37 IR 437 [4.2.5.1]

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 20 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 21 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

COMMONWEALTH Acts Interpretation Act s 3(2) [2.5.1]

[6.4], [7.2.1], [7.2.2], [7.3], s 43 [7.6.1], [7.6.4.1] s 5(3)(b) [4.4.2.2]

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 22 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

s 6(2)(g) [4.5] s 3(2)(a) [9.1] s 7 [8.4.3]

Judiciary Act 1903 [2.1], [2.3],

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 23 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

Public Interest Disclosure Act NORTHERN TERRITORY s 38(1) [4.6]

Administrative Decisions Crown Proceedings Act 1992

00_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_4pp_SI.indd 24 21/12/2017 11:42 AM

regulation of executive branch of government: the ‘administration’. Administrative law is

01_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_3pp_SI.indd 1 21/12/2017 11:44 AM

1.2 SOME KEY IDEAS

to encourage critical reflection on these questions throughout the discussions to follow.

01_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_3pp_SI.indd 2 21/12/2017 11:44 AM

1.2.1 Three kinds of accountability

01_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_3pp_SI.indd 3 21/12/2017 11:44 AM

1.2.2 The merits/legality distinction

01_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_3pp_SI.indd 4 21/12/2017 11:44 AM

1.2.2.2 The ‘legality’ of administrative action

01_CAN_PAL3_05246_TXT_3pp_SI.indd 5 21/12/2017 11:44 AM

You might also like