Pre-Exam Tutorial Overview: General Advice: Approaching study: Summaries Approaching exam: time allocation, which question first, etc. 2013 Exam: Problem Question Problem Q Summary Structure 1. Jurisdiction 2. Judiciability 3. Standing 4. GOR 5. Remedies 6. Statutory Exclusion 2013 Exam: i – Jurisdiction (20%) ii – Standing (10%) iii –PF / Project Blue Sky invalidity (20%) iv – GOR (30%) v – GOR (20%) i: Jurisdiction High Court Federal Matter Federal Court S75(iii) 2. Is the Cth a party? S75(v) ADJR 1. Cth Act? State Matter Supreme Court Common Law – ss75(iii) and (v) (Kirk’s case) State clones of ADJR 3. Are you seeking a particular remedy? 4. Is there an exclusion clause? i: Jurisdiction ADJR rules: Application ‘Aggrieved’ s5 ADJR Standing – discuss in Q2 Decision s3(1) ADJR Decision to cancel ISP is final, operative, determinative (Bond) Administrative Character s3(1) ADJR Under an enactment s3(1) ADJR Factors to consider: Nature of decision: relates to many of individual? Who supervises decision? Merits Review = usually administrative (Blewitt, Leg Instruments Act) Tang: Expressly authorised and required under an Act Affects legal rights & obligations (Tang) BUT: Private body NEAT – compare TIO with AWBI ii: Standing Standing Common Law, 5 ADJR ‘aggrieved person’ Application CDF = not personally affected 1) decision interferes with private rights; Special interest? or CDA is a non-profit group 2) ‘special interest’ in subject matter formed by wealthy More than a mere ‘intellectual or Australian musicians and emotional concern’; movie makers. ... Has More than interest of public at large participated in govt However: standing recognized for orgs consultations into the similar to ACF. Ct Considered: future of these industries and has been involved Prior involvement in particular matter; extensively in funding Group recognized/funded by govt; research into the impact of Group represents significant strand of illegal downloads on public opinion; & Australia’s film and music industries. ... Not in receipt Expertise of org (Tas Conservation Trust) of any government funding. Bateman’s Bay: group had standing because Starting point: ACF : personally detrimented Standing liberalising? iii: Breach of Procedural Fairness: Invalidity? Would the breach of PF make the decision invalid? Clear breach of PF Application Project Blue Sky Analysis Question = will decision to cancel internet be invalid? – Project Blue Sky: Language Subject Matter Language of ss951 and 952 Subject matter: Public effect of decision? Practical effect? Consequences? Consequences SZIZO – Right address, wrong person – Unfairness? Miah – nature of the decision (final?), urgency of decision, formalities required, subject matter SZIZO – means/end Is Cory aware that he can challenge notice? Miah – weigh up factors How to Approach the GOR Section Have a list of GOR Have a list of cases with ‘fact’ catch phrases Think through before writing Pick the STRONGEST GOR (likely 1 or 2) For weaker arguments, mention BRIEFLY if time Quickly mention remedies – under ADJR here, so mention that remedies are at the Court’s discretion, do not need to prove jurisdictional error (s16) Example of GOR list Procedural grounds of review (JE) Rule Against Bias (Actual / Apparent) Procedural Fairness (Scope/Content/Unfairness) Reasoning process grounds (JE) Duty to inquire Giving Reasons ‘Consideration’ Grounds: consideration of irrelevant matters failure to consider relevant matters Unauthorised Purpose Inflexible application of a rule or policy Dictation Ground of review - ‘Rule against dictation’ Rule against unauthorised delegation Decisional grounds Jurisdictional Error Error of Law Errors of Fact Jurisdictional Fact Decision conditioned on fact ‘State of Mind’ No evidence ‘Wednesbury’ Unreasonableness Rule Against Bias Vakauta v Kelly: derogatory or insulting words Hot-Holdings: mining licence, personal contacts w/ interested parties Ebner: Pecuniary or proprietary interest Laws v ABA: necessity, whole DM would be disqualified if bias Jia Legeng : Minister expresses public opinion about deporting accused, wrote to AAT expressing disapproval with initial decision Baker v Canada: bias subordinate influenced decision .... iv: Grounds of Review GOR Application Procedural Fairness – should she get an oral hearing? Should she get an oral hearing? Scope, content ‘Fetter’ – is the policy regarding policy hearings inflexible Policy of no oral hearing – not considering particular case at hand State of Mind – Jurisdictional Fact Irrational to consider dog’s name as password not ‘reasonable effort’ but ‘open to them’? Misunderstanding of statute in expecting copywriters not to issue notice if licence held? Duty to inquire (SZIAI ) - ‘failure to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which is easily ascertained’ may amount to JE Limited, narrowly applied: Obvious Centrally relevant Readily ascertainable That Anna had a licence: can they rely on copywriters to check? v: Grounds of Review GOR Application Failure to consider relevant Effect on Children information Letter from principal Legitimate Expectation ONLY affects content of PF Inflexible policy rule Is the policy listed on the website inflexible? No evidence Courts wary of applying to ‘insufficient evidence’ No evidence to suggest she Will breach again? Final Notes Cases you should know WELL: NEAT Project Blue Sky Kioa Facts of GOR cases