Maria O’Sullivan

The recent High Court decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration; DCM20 v Secretary of Department of Home Affairs contains some important statements on the reviewability of non-statutory ministerial guidelines. The key questions before the High Court were whether the Court could determine whether non-statutory executive action by federal departmental officers was unlawful on the ground of legal unreasonableness, and whether the guidelines used by officers to ‘screen’ visa applications to be presented to the Minister were valid.

Anne Twomey

One of the difficulties in understanding and applying manner and form constraints on state legislative power is that there is little jurisprudence on the subject and what exists is often unclear, poorly reasoned and in some cases just wrong. That is why the manner and form arguments in Mineralogy …

Joshua Forrest & Adrienne Stone

On 13 October 2021, the High Court handed down its decision in Ridd v James Cook University [2021] HCA 32. The decision concludes a bitter, long-running and unedifying legal dispute between James Cook University (JCU) and a former professor, Peter Ridd. It also usefully clarifies the status, content …

The Hon William Gummow AC

When the Judiciary Committee of the 1891 National Australasian Convention, under the Chairmanship of Andrew Inglis Clark, prepared its report (which is reproduced in Judicial Federalism in Australia: History, Theory, Doctrine and Practice at pp 208 to 210), there were in operation in what today could be identified …

Brendan Lim

History, theory, doctrine and practice. The subtitle of this splendid new book by Gabrielle Appleby, Anna Olijnyk, James Stellios and John Williams, Judicial Federalism in Australia: History, Theory, Doctrine and Practice (Federation Press, 2021), reminds us of the many different resources on which we can draw in …

Sarah Murray

Appleby, Olijnyk, Stellios and Williams’ book, Judicial Federalism in Australia – History, Theory, Doctrine and Practice (2021, Federation Press), is nothing short of a constitutional law aficionado’s delight – unravelling the mysteries and twists and turns of Kable through the combined expertise of the authors and the historical, doctrinal …

Erin F. Delaney

If, as A.V. Dicey once wrote, ‘federalism means legalism,’ it is particularly surprising that studies of federalism so often overlook a federal system’s judicial architecture and its operation. Exploring the ‘predominance of the judiciary in the constitution’ often begins and ends with analysis of …

Gabrielle Appleby, Anna Olijnyk, James Stellios & John Williams

This book is the result of years of collective and collaborative thinking around Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, and, to use Professor Sarah Murray’s phrase, the ‘unique form of Australian judicial federalism’ that it reflects today. We are delighted to see the book launched …

Alan Robertson SC

Dr Amanda Sapienza’s Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action is an important work because it has as its centre of attention non-statutory executive action, rather than dealing with it, however well, in a more general context of public law. In this second category I would include, for …

Cheryl Saunders

Publication of a serious work on judicial review of non-statutory executive power in Australia is long overdue and Amanda Sapienza’s book is very welcome for this reason. I have watched her ideas on these complex issues develop since her presentation to the Cambridge Public Law Conference in 2016. …

Jackson Wherrett

On one level, Dr Amanda Sapienza’s Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action is a novel examination of an under-explored area of administrative law. At the same time, it joins a very long line of scholarship that considers the principle of the separation of powers. More particularly, it draws on the …

Amanda Sapienza

Between the pandemic and my post-PhD career choices, an in-person launch of Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action, which was published by the Federation Press at the end of 2020, was out of the question. So I’m indebted to the editors of AUSPUBLAW for hosting this online …

Brenda Tronson

In this post I provide an overview, from a barrister’s perspective, of the approach I am likely to take when asked for advice regarding a potential judicial review application in relation to a Commonwealth administrative decision. While the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) …

Anton Moiseienko

In 2020, the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) held an inquiry into the potential introduction of corruption and human rights sanctions, also referred to as ‘Magnitsky’ sanctions. The inquiry culminated in a report calling on the government to ‘enact stand alone …

Anna Kretowicz

In March 2021, there were an estimated 2,100 undecided new applications at the Parole Board Queensland (the Board). While administrative backlogs are undesirable (one need only think of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where a backlog of 53,000 applications in 2018 left the body in chaos), the problem here compounds with the legislative …

Yee-Fui Ng

The Kerr Committee’s vision for a new administrative justice system led to the ground-breaking introduction of the ‘new administrative law’ package in the 1970s, incorporating the establishment of a generalist administrative tribunal, statutory judicial review, the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and later, in the 1980s, freedom of information …

Ellen Rock

In May of this year, Bromberg J in the Federal Court handed down a key decision in climate change litigation which has made waves both within Australia and internationally. Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 was a negligence claim commenced in connection with an application to expand …

Isolde Daniell

The Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020 (Cth) (the Bill) was introduced to the Commonwealth House of Representatives on 10 December 2020. It has since been considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and …