Research Publications and Outputs: Recent submissions
-
Chapter III and legislative competence to stipulate that a material legal error is non-jurisdictional
Published 2021It has been widely assumed that Australian Parliaments enjoy plenary power to provide that legal errors are non-jurisdictional. The recently articulated materiality threshold for jurisdictional error raises an intriguing ...Open AccessArticle -
Participation and responsiveness in merits review of polycentric decisions: A comparison of development assessment appeals
Published 2010The question of whether tribunals operate in an inquisitorial or adversarial manner can be regarded as a starting point for evaluating their processes. It is a question that is also raised in regards to the Land and ...Open AccessArticle -
Between rules and discretion: Legislative principles and the "relevant considerations" ground of review
Published 2013Principles may be included in legislation for administrators to apply in the exercise of discretionary powers. But can courts enforce them and, if so, how? This article examines the difficulties that arise when applicants ...Open AccessArticle -
Tribunals and administrative policies: Does the high or low policy distinction help?
Published 2009The Australian administrative law literature identifies a number of factors for allocating weight to administrative policies by merits review tribunals. The primary consideration is the distinction between high policies, ...Open AccessArticle -
The duality of jurisdictional error: Central (to justifying entrenched judicial review of executive action) and pivotal (to review doctrine)
Published 2021Jurisdictional error has a prominent role in entrenched review of executive action in Australia, despite near universal acknowledgment that it does not illuminate the operative norms of administrative law. A statutory ...Open AccessArticle