LLB230 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Objective Test, Natural Justice
Seminar 11 Unreasonableness & Natural Justice
Natural justice (in moot) – only cover bias, not the ‘hearing rule’
Unreasonableness:
Wednesbury unreasonableness – so unreasonable that no reasonable person would
have reached it
Reflected in Section 5(2)(g)
Often argued, rarely successful
Types of unreasonableness:
Lack of plausible justification:
Parramatta City Council v Pestell (pg. 932):
oImportance of the objective of ‘special benefit’
oCannot arbitrarily apply rates to lots obtaining special benefit
oLack of plausible justification as it doesn’t match the objectives
and aims of the statute
Director of Animal & Plant Quarantine v Australian Pork Ltd (pg. 935):
oDecision need not be made on ‘hard scientific data’ but rather
on ‘existing state of knowledge’
oInvolved ‘[a]n element of speculation, in the sense of assessing
the likelihood of future damages’
Capricious use of power:
Edelston v Wilcox (pg. 936):
oTaking all of one’s income is a capricious use of power
oPrevents one’s ability for practical appeal rights and ability to
support himself
oPower is extremely broad, which means it requires a special
degree of care
Duty of inquiry:
Prasard v Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs, Wilcox J (pg.
940):
‘Where it is obvious that material is readily available which is
centrally relevant to the decision to be made… to proceed to a
decision without making any attempt to obtain that
information may properly be describe as an exercise of the
decision-making power in a manner so unreasonable that no
reasonable person would have so exercised it.’
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (pg. 941)
oNo general duty to make inquiries
o‘It may be that a failure to make an obvious inquiry about a
critical fact, the existence of which is easily ascertained,
could, in some circumstances, supply a sufficient link to the
outcome to constitute a failure to review…’
Unequal treatment:
Sunshine Coast Broadcasters Ltd v Duncan – argument for the
applicant – read & rebutt
oUnfair, unjustified unequal treatment
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Natural justice (in moot) only cover bias, not the hearing rule". Wednesbury unreasonableness so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have reached it. 932): importance of the objective of special benefit", cannot arbitrarily apply rates to lots obtaining special benefit, lack of plausible justification as it doesn"t match the objectives and aims of the statute. Director of animal & plant quarantine v australian pork ltd (pg. 935): decision need not be made on hard scientific data" but rather on existing state of knowledge", involved [a]n element of speculation, in the sense of assessing the likelihood of future damages". 936): taking all of one"s income is a capricious use of power, prevents one"s ability for practical appeal rights and ability to support himself, power is extremely broad, which means it requires a special degree of care. Prasard v minister for immigration and ethic affairs, wilcox j (pg. Minister for immigration and citizenship v sziai (pg.
