Judicial Review of Executive Action in Domestic Affairs

1980 ◽  
Vol 80 (7) ◽  
pp. 1535
Author(s):  
Alan Scott Kaden
2021 ◽  
pp. 356-374
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett

This chapter looks at the purpose and constitutional significance of judicial review. Where public bodies overreach themselves by acting unlawfully, the judicial review process allows individuals to hold public bodies to account in the courts, ensuring that governmental and public powers are lawfully exercised. This maintains the rule of law by helping to protect the public from the arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of government power. Judicial review is therefore a powerful check and control by the courts on executive action, but it also raises issues of whether the process gives the judiciary too much power over the elected government. There are three preliminary or threshold issues that a claimant needs to satisfy when bringing a judicial review claim. To be amenable to judicial review, the claim must raise a public law matter; it must be justiciable; and the claimant must have standing (locus standi).


Author(s):  
Leighton McDonald

Jurisdictional error is pivotal but not, in any substantive sense, ‘central’. It is pivotal because it marks important boundaries (drawn by reference to other ideas) in the law of judicial review of executive action. This pivotal but not central role has enabled jurisdictional error to function as a ‘conceptual totem’, emblematic of a determinedly ‘statutory approach’ to the articulation and elaboration of administrative law norms. After elaborating these claims, the article goes on to doubt the constitutional case for the retention of the statutory approach that, in recent years, has come to characterise the Australian approach to jurisdictional error. Recognition of the totemic function of jurisdictional error, it is concluded, is a helpful first step in better understanding and analysing administrative law norms which bear no obvious relation to statute.


Author(s):  
Walker Kristen

This chapter considers both the foundations for, and the content of, the High Court's authority in Australia. It focuses principally on the current authority of the High Court, but with reference to some aspects of its history. The chapter first explains the Court's constitutional status as Australia's apex court, performing the role of both constitutional court and ultimate appellate court for both federal and State matters. It next outlines the institutional features of the Court that underpin its authority, in particular its composition and independence. The chapter then examines the Court's authority to enforce constitutional limits through judicial review of legislative action. Lastly, the chapter considers the Court's authority to review executive action and the constitutional foundation for that role.


Author(s):  
Wheeler Fiona

This chapter explores how guarantees of due process in Australia are implemented. It first examines the unsuccessful attempt in the 1890s to incorporate an express due process clause in the Australian Constitution. The chapter next looks at the High Court's historical recognition that Chapter III of the Constitution incorporates judicial review of the validity of legislative and executive action and a separation of federal judicial power. It then examines how, in recent decades, the Court has distilled a group of due process guarantees binding on the Commonwealth and the states from this institutional framework. Finally, the chapter considers key issues in future development of Australian due process law.


1931 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Patrick H. Loughran

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document