1 / 7

Using Judicial Review to Protect Rights and Challenge Decisions

Explore the use of judicial review in protecting rights and challenging decisions, with specific cases ANZ v. Konza and WA Land Authority v. Minister for Sustainability. Understand the limitations and procedural complications of the ADJR Act.

rokeefe
Download Presentation

Using Judicial Review to Protect Rights and Challenge Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using judicial review • Essentially negative remedies … can be used: • to protect … ANZ v Konza; • to destroy … WA Land Authority v Minister for Sustainabilityetc. • Cannot be used to create a decision … a successful applicant is most often sent back to the decision-maker. • Procedural complications in ADJR Act … largely overcome by Judiciary Act, s 39B(1A)(c).

  2. ANZ v Konza [2012] FCA 196 [2012] FCAFC 127 Challenge to 2 notices issued under ITAA, s 264, requiring disclosure of information (stored in Australia) from customers’ accounts with ANZ Vanuatu

  3. Judiciary Act 1903, s 39B(1) & (1A)(c)ADJR Act, s 5 • ANZ sought prohibition against Konza (a delegate of the Commissioner), “an officer of the Commonwealth” … s 39B(1) • ANZ claimed notices not authorised by s 264(1) – “a matter arising under a law made by the Parliament” … s 39B(1A)(c) • ANZ claimed – • notices not authorised by s 264(1), • the decision to issue notices involved an error of law, • the decision to issue notices was contrary to law, • the decision to issue notices involved an improper exercise of power and • the notices were uncertain. Raising s 5(1)(d), (e), (f) and (j) of the ADJR Act

  4. The result • Obligation of confidentiality cannot override s 264 … Lander J at [71]; FFC at [30] • Disclosure would not breach Vanuatu law … Lander J at [128]; FFC at [23] • In any event, s 264 is not subject to constraint by foreign law … Lander J at [81]-[84]; FFC at [31]-[34] • Notices not issued for an improper purpose … Lander J at [133]; FFC at [39]-[42] • Notice 1 not uncertain … Lander J at [186]; FFC at [50] • Notice 2 uncertain … FFC at [63]

  5. WA Land Authority (Landcorp) v Minister for Sustainability etc [2012] FCA 226 • Challenge to delegate’s decision to confirm that development of land was “controlled action” under EPBC Act by reason of likely “significant impact” on protected listed species – Carnaby’sBlack Cockatoo

  6. Judiciary Act 1903, s 39B(1) & (1A)(c)ADJR Act, s 5 • Under ADJR Act, Landcorp claimed: • breach of natural justice – s 5(1)(a); • decision involved an error of law – s 5(1)(f); • irrelevant considerations taken into account – s 5(2)(a); • relevant considerations not taken into account – s 5(2)(b). • Judiciary Act claims not developed.

  7. The result • Irrelevant considerations not taken into account … at [55]-[56], [59]-[60] • Relevant considerations taken into account … at [62]-[63], [71]-[72] • Natural justice denied when Department failed to reveal: • documents reflecting Department’s accumulated knowledge and approach to assessing proposed actions... at [86] • information about other developments in the area … at [129] • an assumed deficiency in an expert’s report … at [138]

More Related