Search Results

12 results for "administrative law mythbuster".
  1. 1. Administrative law mythbuster no 4: R v Kearney; Ex parte Jurlama and beneficial legislation  While reference to the general aspirations of a statute may be useful, statutory construction still requires faithful adherence to the meaning of the relevant section consistent with the context and purpose of the statutory scheme.  Article, 6 Feb 2020
  2. 2. Administrative law mythbuster no 8: NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd  Judicial review of decisions made by private entities is still unlikely to succeed. Notwithstanding its status as an outlier, the decision in NEAT Domestic Trading continues to have effect.  Article, 3 Sep 2020
  3. 3. Administrative law mythbuster no 07: Briginshaw  Administrative decision-makers are not bound by the Briginshaw principle although it can offer guidance when making findings of fact in relation to serious matters, and may assist them to apply the relevant statutory standard of satisfaction that conditions the exercise of power.  Article, 30 Apr 2020
  4. 4. Administrative law mythbuster no 06: Bhardwaj  Bhardwaj provided that administrative decisions infected by jurisdictional error should be treated as having no legal consequence. Whether this is applicable depends on the legislation pursuant to which the decision was made.  Article, 16 Apr 2020
  5. 5. Administrative law mythbuster no 05: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286  Merits reviewers can sometimes take into account material that was not before the original decision-maker, but only if there is no limitation in the underlying statutory scheme.  Article, 1 Apr 2020
  6. 6. Administrative law mythbuster no 03: Plaintiff S157   Plaintiff S157 continues to be a foundational case in judicial review of privative clause decisions, but the High Court has recently proven more sanguine about clauses that purport to exclude review of non-jurisdictional errors of law.  Article, 12 Dec 2019
  7. 7. Administrative law mythbuster no 02: Kioa v West   Kioa v West continues to be relevant, but procedural fairness obligations now require decision-makers to do more.  Article, 14 Nov 2019
  8. 8. Administrative law mythbuster no 01: Wednesbury  Wednesbury unreasonableness continues to be relevant, but is not the sole basis for establishing unreasonableness as applicants can seek review for extreme illogicality or irrationality.  Article, 19 Sep 2019
  9. 9. Government Services 5 Minute Fix 03  Get your 5 Minute Fix of government sector news. This issue: some myths are busted; everyone's talking about force majeure, but are they saying the right things?; the latest on nuclear power and uranium; NSW erects Six Pillars for building reform; emergency procurement; and the future of cloud services without the CCSL.  Article, 16 Apr 2020
  10. 10. Government services 5 Minute Fix 06  Get your 5 Minute Fix of government sector news. This issue: more administrative law news; COVID-19 triggers law reform in the west; procurement is on many people's minds, but are they doing it correctly; the Queensland caretaker period; making sure you're not on a road to nowhere; environmental approvals get bilateral; building resilience in dealing with bushfires; and the intriguing Tales from the Bar.  Article, 15 Oct 2020
  11. 11. Government services 5 Minute Fix 04  Get your 5 Minute Fix of government sector news. This issue: The Palace Letters and disclosure of communications with the Sovereign; the perils of procrastination; privacy and record-keeping in a pandemic; procurement changes in response to COVID-19.  Article, 25 Jun 2020
  12. 12. Administrative law updater: Help! Do I owe a duty of procedural fairness?  Most decisions that affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations will require procedural fairness. But how do you work out if procedural fairness is excluded?  Article, 9 Jul 2020