Griffith University v Tang
[2005] HCA 7Griffith University
vTang
Judges:
Gleeson CJ
Gummow J
Kirby J
Callinan J
Heydon J
Legislative References:
Judicial Review Act 1991 - The Act
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - The Act
Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 - s 8
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - The Act
Judiciary Act 1903 - s 39B
Griffith University Act 1998 - s 4
Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 - The Act
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - The Act
Bankruptcy Act 1966 - Pt X
Migration Act 1958 - s 6A(1)(c)
Wheat Marketing Act 1989 - The Act
Australian National University Act 1991 (Cth) - The Act
Crimes Act 1914 - s 10
Higher Education Support Act 2003 - The Act
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - The Act
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 - The Act
Case References:
-
Judgment date: 3 March 2005
Order
2. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 19 December 2003 and in its place order:
- (a)
- the appeal to that Court is allowed;
- (b)
- set aside the orders of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Mackenzie J) made on 14 February 2003 and in their place order that the application for a statutory order of review is dismissed;
- (c)
- the University pay the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal;
- (d)
- the question of the costs of the application before Mackenzie J is remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland.
3. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to this Court.
Tang v Griffith University [ 2003] QSC 22.
Tang v Griffith University [ 2003] QCA 571.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 .
(1996) 68 FCR 87 .
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 101, citing Neaves J in CEA Technologies Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority ( 1994) 51 FCR 329 at 333.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 .
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 31-32.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 35.
Burns v Australian National University ( 1982) 40 ALR 707 at 717.
(2001) 53 NSWLR 299 at 313.
(2002) 209 CLR 126 at 129-130 [2]-[4].
(1971) at 113.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond ( 1990) 170 CLR 321 at 336-337.
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd ( 1997) 188 CLR 501 at 558.
Provision for transfer of proceedings from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court is made by s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
See, for example , R v Aston University Senate, Ex parte Roffey [ 1969] 2 QB 538 at 543.
Now repealed by s 91 of the Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2003 (Q).
cf Bond University Act 1987 (Q), s 14.
Ex parte King; Re The University of Sydney ( 1943) 44 SR (NSW) 19 at 31 ; Ex parte McFadyen ( 1945) 45 SR (NSW) 200 ; R v University of Saskatchewan, Ex parte King ( 1968) 1 DLR (3d) 721 at 723 ; Norrie v Senate of the University of Auckland [ 1984] 1 NZLR 129 ; Thomas v University of Bradford [ 1987] AC 795.
[1987] AC 795 at 810-811.
Norrie v Senate of the University of Auckland [ 1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 135-136 , 140. Somers J, the third member of the Court of Appeal, inclined to the view taken in England: [1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 148.
Ex parte McFadyen ( 1945) 45 SR (NSW) 200.
Ex parte McFadyen ( 1945) 45 SR (NSW) 200 at 205; cf Murdoch University v Bloom and Kyle [ 1980] WAR 193 at 198 , 202 ; Bayley-Jones v University of Newcastle ( 1990) 22 NSWLR 424 , noted (1991) 65 Australian Law Journal 299. See also Matthews, "The Office of the University Visitor", (1980) 11 University of Queensland Law Journal 152.
Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 49.
There is a collection and discussion of a number of the cases under both the ADJR Act and the Review Act in Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 683-686.
Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 684.
(1996) 66 FCR 537 ; affd (1996) 45 ALD 125 .
(1996) 66 FCR 537 at 568.
(1987) 13 FCR 306 .
(1994) 55 FCR 492 .
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q), s 36; Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Q), s 7. The definition of "enactment" in s 3(1) of the ADJR Act includes "an instrument (including rules, regulations or by-laws) made under [statute]" and many cases under the ADJR Act have turned upon the question whether a decision was "made under" such an instrument.
A submission by the respondent relying upon the term "statutory instrument" was made to the primary judge but because other submissions succeeded it was unnecessary to deal with it. The submission has not been revived by a Notice of Contention.
Tang v Griffith University [ 2003] QSC 22 at [25].
Tang v Griffith University [ 2003] QCA 571.
[2003] QCA 571 at [45].
(1993) 45 FCR 164 .
(1993) 45 FCR 164 at 173.
(1993) 45 FCR 164 at 173.
[2003] QCA 571 at [29].
[2000] 1 WLR 1988 ; [2000] 3 All ER 752 .
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc ( 2002) 209 CLR 95 .
[2000] 1 WLR 1988 at 1992; [2000] 3 All ER 752 at 756.
(1990) 170 CLR 321 at 377.
cf Australian National University v Burns ( 1982) 64 FLR 166 ; 43 ALR 25 .
See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Mayer ( 1985) 157 CLR 290 at 302-303 ; Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( 1989) 169 CLR 379 at 404-406.
(1990) 170 CLR 321 .
(1990) 170 CLR 321 at 337 per Mason CJ; Brennan J and Deane J agreeing.
Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 60.
Report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, ( 1971) at 113-114.
(1988) 84 ALR 615 .
(1997) 76 FCR 582 .
Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 73-74 (footnotes omitted).
Grain Pool of Western Australia v Commonwealth ( 2000) 202 CLR 479 at 492 [16].
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett ( 1945) 70 CLR 141 at 154.
(1983) 151 CLR 575 .
(1983) 151 CLR 575 at 581.
(1988) 84 ALR 563 at 571.
These include James Richardson Corporation Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation ( 1992) 117 ALR 277 at 280 ; Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd ( 1996) 67 FCR 402 at 409.
(1996) 65 FCR 269 at 273.
[2003] QCA 571 at [28].
(1984) 155 CLR 234 .
(1961) 109 CLR 105 .
(1961) 109 CLR 105 at 118.
Puntoriero v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation ( 1999) 199 CLR 575 at 578 [4], 588 [34], 613 [113].
(1984) 155 CLR 234 .
(1985) 157 CLR 290 .
(2003) 77 ALJR 1263 ; 198 ALR 179 .
(1985) 157 CLR 290 at 303.
(1985) 157 CLR 290 at 307.
(1985) 157 CLR 290 at 307.
(1984) 155 CLR 234 at 241; cf Salerno v National Crime Authority ( 1997) 75 FCR 133 where search warrants were issued under the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and supplied the only lawful authority for what otherwise were acts of trespass and conversion by State police officers "attached" to the National Crime Authority.
NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd ( 2003) 77 ALJR 1263 at 1275 [55]; 198 ALR 179 at 193-194.
(1984) 1 FCR 254 at 264.
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 96-97 , 101-103.
The words in s 4 of the Review Act are "(whether or not in the exercise of a discretion)".
(1985) 157 CLR 290 .
cf R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett ( 1945) 70 CLR 141 at 154.
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 103.
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation ( 1993) 45 FCR 164 at 169.
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 103.
See, eg , Thorby v Goldberg ( 1964) 112 CLR 597 .
(1985) 7 FCR 575 .
(1996) 65 FCR 269 at 273.
(1996) 65 FCR 269 at 273.
(1996) 65 FCR 269 at 277.
(1997) 188 CLR 501 at 565.
(1990) 170 CLR 321 at 377.
(1985) 157 CLR 290 .
(1984) 155 CLR 234 .
(2003) 77 ALJR 1263 ; 198 ALR 179 .
Section 3(3) of the ADJR Act is to similar effect.
In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts ( 1921) 29 CLR 257 at 265 ; Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference ( 2002) 209 CLR 372 at 389 [4]-[5], 404-407 [61]-[68], 459 [243].
(2002) 209 CLR 372 . See also Zines , Federal Jurisdiction in Australia, 3rd ed (2002) at 17-21.
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 96-97.
(1996) 68 FCR 87 at 103-104.
(2003) 214 CLR 1 at 27-28 [81]-[83], 48 [148].
(2003) 77 ALJR 1263 ; 198 ALR 179 (" NEAT Trading ").
Mantziaris, "A 'Wrong Turn' On the Public/Private Distinction : NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd ", (2003) 14 Public Law Review 197 at 198. See also NEAT Trading ( 2003) 77 ALJR 1263 at 1276 [68]; 198 ALR 179 at 195-196.
Glasson v Parkes Rural Distributions Pty Ltd ( 1984) 155 CLR 234 .
Hill, "The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and 'under an enactment': Can NEAT Domestic be reconciled with Glasson?", (2004) 11 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 135. The author concludes that (with a little difficulty) the reconciliation is possible.
Arora, "Not So Neat: Non-Statutory Corporations and the Reach of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", (2004) 32 Federal Law Review 141 at 160. The issue is a transnational one: see Aman, "Privatisation, Prisons, Democracy and Human Rights: The Need to Extend the Province of Administrative Law", in de Feyter and Gomez Isa (eds) , Privatisation and Human Rights in the Age of Globalisation, ( 2005) 91.
Second Reading Speech by the Attorney-General (Mr R J Ellicott MP) on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill 1977 (Cth): Australia, House of Representatives , Parliamentary Debates ( Hansard), 28 April 1977 at 1394, 1395; Curtis, "A New Constitutional Settlement for Australia", (1981) 12 Federal Law Review 1; Aronson and Franklin , Review of Administrative Action, ( 1987) at 241; Australia, Administrative Review Council , The Scope of Judicial Review, Discussion Paper, (2003) at 17-21 [1.47]-[1.63].
[2003] QSC 22 .
[2003] QCA 571 , per Jerrard JA, Dutney and Philippides JJ.
Communication by Griffith University to the respondent of the decision of the Assessment Board of the University, dated 9 August 2002 .
Communication by Griffith University to the respondent of the decision of the Assessment Board of the University, dated 9 August 2002 .
Reasons of Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ ("joint reasons") at [80].
Joint reasons at [91].
Review Act, s 7(1).
Review Act, s 7(1).
Joint reasons at [33]-[39].
Joint reasons at [97].
The University of Sydney was established by an Act made by the Legislative Council of New South Wales in 1850 (14 Vict No 31), and the University of Melbourne by the Legislative Council of Victoria in 1853 (16 Vict No 34). See also University and University Colleges Act 1900 (NSW); University Act 1890 (Vic) ; The Australian Encyclopaedia, 6th ed (1996), Vol 8 at 2979-2984.
The Australian Encyclopaedia, 4th ed (1983), Vol 10 at 130.
See Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd ( 1955) 93 CLR 55 at 77.
University of Queensland Act 1909 (Q).
Thomas v University of Bradford [ 1987] AC 795 at 810-811. See joint reasons at [40].
Norrie v Senate of the University of Auckland [ 1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 135-136 , 140. See joint reasons at [40].
For example the Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 (Q) ("the Higher Education Act"), ss 7, 8.
Review Act, s 18, Sch 1.
Review Act, s 18, Sch 6.
[2004] HCATrans 227 at 1315.
By a combination of the University Act, ss 5 and 6 and the Higher Education Act, ss 5, 6, 7 and 8 . Strictly speaking, the University enjoyed oligopoly powers with the limited number of institutions in Queensland entitled, or recognised by State law as entitled, to describe themselves as universities.
ss 16-1, 16-15.
Norrie [ 1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 135.
Re Paine and University of Toronto ( 1981) 131 DLR (3d) 325 at 329-330 (Court of Appeal of Ontario; leave to appeal refused by the Supreme Court of Canada: (1982) 42 NR 270 ); see Re Polten and Governing Council of the University of Toronto ( 1975) 59 DLR (3d) 197 at 212.
Ceylon University v Fernando [ 1960] 1 WLR 223 at 231-233 , 236 per Lord Jenkins (PC); [1960] 1 All ER 631 at 637-639 , 642.
[1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 135.
See for example Fridman, "Judicial Intervention Into University Affairs", (1973) 21 Chitty's Law Journal 181 at 181-182, cited in Re Polten ( 1975) 59 DLR (3d) 197 at 209-211; Nelson, "Judicial Review in the Community of Scholars : A Short History of Kulchyski v Trent University ", (2004) 13 Education and Law Journal 367 at 381-382; Caldwell, "Judicial Review of Universities -- The Visitor and the Visited", (1982) Canterbury Law Review 307 at 311.
University Act, ss 5, 6, 8 and 9 .
Griffith University, "Policy on Student Grievances and Appeals", (2001), Nos 01/0268; 01/0030 (revised) at [6.0] (emphasis added).
Stated in Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin ( 1990) 170 CLR 1 at 35-36 per Brennan J; cf Brennan, "The Purpose and Scope of Judicial Review", (1986) 2 Australian Bar Review 93 at 104-105.
The Assessment Board, provisions for its "Chair" and for the conduct of a "Formal Hearing Concerning Alleged Academic Misconduct" are described in the "Policy on Academic Misconduct" approved by the University's Academic Committee Resolution 2/ 2001 of 1 March 2001 (No 01/0035) exhibited by the University in the proceedings.
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman ( 1980) 144 CLR 13 at 33-34 ; Kioa v West ( 1985) 159 CLR 550 at 584-585 ; Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( 1990) 169 CLR 648 at 652 ; Sullivan v Department of Transport ( 1978) 20 ALR 323 at 342 per Deane J.
Visy Paper Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( 2003) 216 CLR 1 at 10 [24] and cases there cited.
See for example Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ( 2004) 78 ALJR 1056 at 1073 [92]; 208 ALR 271 at 293.
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords ( 1997) 188 CLR 241 at 271.
E (A Minor) v Dorset County Council [ 1995] 2 AC 633 at 694; see also Lonrho Plc v Fayed [ 1992] 1 AC 448 at 469-470 ; Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd ( 2004) 78 ALJR 628 at 654 [138]; 205 ALR 522 at 558.
E (A Minor) [ 1995] 2 AC 633 at 693 per Sir Thomas Bingham MR. See Behrooz ( 2004) 78 ALJR 1056 at 1073 [92]; 208 ALR 271 at 293.
For example In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts ( 1921) 29 CLR 257 .
E (A Minor) [ 1995] 2 AC 633 at 693.
Creyke and Hill, "A Wavy Line in the Sand : Bond and Jurisdictional Issues in Judicial and Administrative Review", (1998) 26 Federal Law Review 15 ("Creyke and Hill"); and O'Donovan, "Statutory Authorities, General Newspapers and Decisions under an Enactment", (1998) 5 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 69 ("O'Donovan").
Joint reasons at [65].
Joint reasons at [26]-[35], [41]-[51].
Review Act, s 16(1). See joint reasons at [26].
University Act, s 4(2)(a).
University Act, s 6(1).
University Act, s 6(1)(f).
University Act, s 5(a).
University Act, s 5(d).
University Act, s 5(f).
University Act, s 5(e).
s 23(1); see also s 24AA and Review Act, s 5.
Grannall v Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd ( 1955) 93 CLR 55 at 77.
s 7.
s 8.
s 9(1).
s 9(2).
s 11.
[2003] QSC 22 at [9].
[2003] QSC 22 at [11]-[12].
cf Australian National University v Lewins ( 1996) 68 FCR 87 at 104.
University Act, s 5(a).
Joint reasons at [57].
Paragraph 6.0. See above at [112].
Joint reasons at [40].
Under the University Act, s 61(1). See also s 62.
Joint reasons at [95].
University Act, s 5(e).
Joint reasons at [33].
Australian Wool Testing Authority Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation ( 1990) 26 FCR 171 at 178.
cf R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council ( 1981) 151 CLR 170 at 218.
(1990) 170 CLR 321 at 335-338 per Mason CJ.
s 3(3). See Annetts v McCann ( 1990) 170 CLR 596 ; Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission ( 1992) 175 CLR 564 .
Creyke and Hill at 28-31.
Creyke and Hill at 41. See also Lamb v Moss ( 1983) 49 ALR 533 at 546-551 , 556.
Joint reasons at [46] by reference to the Review Act, s 20(1).
cf Kelson v Forward ( 1995) 60 FCR 39 .
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd ( 1981) 149 CLR 27 ; North Coast Environment Council Inc v Minister for Resources ( 1994) 55 FCR 492 ; cf Mack, "Standing to Sue Under Federal Administrative Law", (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 319.
Review Act, ss 41, 47(1).
Review Act, s 20(1).
Review Act, s 33. See also Review Act, Pt 4.
[2003] QCA 571 at [2] per Jerrard JA.
Review Act, s 4, definition of "decision to which this Act applies".
s 4(b).
Review Act, s 3, definition of "State authority".
Review Act, s 4.
See generally Explanatory Memorandum, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill 1977 (Cth) ("Explanatory Memorandum").
Explanatory Memorandum at [28]. See ADJR Act, s 7.
See for example Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic), s 2; Aronson, Dyer and Groves , Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) at 21-23.
ADJR Act, s 3(1), definition of "decision to which this Act applies".
ADJR Act, s 3(1), definition of "decision to which this Act applies".
ADJR Act, s 3(1), definition of "decision to which this Act applies".
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("AAT Act"), s 25(1).
AAT Act, s 27(1).
AAT Act, s 27(2); cf ADJR Act, ss 3(4), 12.
Review Act, s 16(1).
(1982) 43 ALR 25 .
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 31-32.
ADJR Act, s 9.
(1982) 40 ALR 707 .
(1982) 40 ALR 707 at 717.
(1961) 109 CLR 105 .
(1961) 109 CLR 105 at 117.
[2003] QCA 571 at [31].
Burns ( 1982) 43 ALR 25 at 35 per Bowen CJ and Lockhart J.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 34.
(1985) 6 FCR 107 .
(1985) 7 FCR 575 .
(1992) 117 ALR 277 at 280.
See joint reasons at [68].
(1993) 45 FCR 164 .
(1993) 45 FCR 164 at 170.
(1996) 67 FCR 402 at 409.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 31.
Joint reasons at [80], [89].
Or under the ADJR Act or like enactment.
Especially Creyke, "Current and Future Challenges in Judicial Review Jurisdiction: A Comment", (2003) 37 AIAL Forum 42. See also Creyke and Hill at 22ff; Dixon, "Local Government, Contracts and Judicial Review", (1996) 12 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 60; Jolly, "Government Owned Corporations: Public Ownership, Accountability and the Courts", (2000) 24 AIAL Forum 15.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 at 34; cf Concord Data Solutions Pty Ltd v Director-General of Education [ 1994] 1 Qd R 343 at 350.
(2004) 78 ALJR 1279 at 1327 [239]; 209 ALR 582 at 646-647 (original emphasis).
Under the Review Act, s 7(1); cf ADJR Act, s 3(4).
Joint reasons at [80].
See Rayjan Properties Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, December 1994, noted in O'Donovan at 77.
Creyke and Hill at 23-43.
O'Donovan at 77.
Vietnam Veterans' Affairs Assn of Australia New South Wales Branch Inc v Cohen ( 1996) 70 FCR 419 .
Church of Scientology v Woodward ( 1982) 154 CLR 25 at 70 ; Enfield City Corporation v Development Assessment Commission ( 2000) 199 CLR 135 at 157 [55].
Australia, Administrative Review Council , The Scope of Judicial Review, Discussion Paper, (2003) at 50-51 [4.4]-[4.8].
Constitution, ss 75(v), 76(ii). Note that in s 75(i) and s 76(i), (ii) and (iv), the preposition "under" is used in identifying the constitutional link essential to jurisdiction. No narrow view has been taken of these provisions.
See Higher Education Act, ss 6, 7 and 8 .
ss 6, 7 and 8 .
University Act, s 6(1).
University Act, s 6(1)(a).
(2003) 77 ALJR 1263 at 1274 [47]-[51], 1275 [54]; 198 ALR 179 at 192-193.
(1982) 43 ALR 25 .
Reasons of Gleeson CJ at [19]-[20], [23]; joint reasons at [91].
Under the Review Act, as under the ADJR Act, "making ... a decision" is defined to include refusing to make a decision: s 5(a). See also ADJR Act, s 3(2).
(2003) 77 ALJR 1263 ; 198 ALR 179 .
Nelson, "Judicial Review in the Community of Scholars : A Short History of Kulchyski v Trent University ", (2004) 13 Education and Law Journal 367 at 375.
Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [ 2000] 1 WLR 1988 at 1992 ; [2000] 3 All ER 752 at 756 ; Hines v Birkbeck College [ 1986] Ch 524 at 542 per Hoffmann J. See also, for example , Thorne v University of London [ 1966] 2 QB 237 .
Re Polten ( 1975) 59 DLR (3d) 197 at 206.
R v University of Cambridge; Ex parte Persaud [ 2001] ELR 64 at 74 [21] (QBD).
Re Paine ( 1981) 131 DLR (3d) 325 at 331-333.
Kulchyski v Trent University ( 2001) 204 DLR (4th) 364 at 375 [26]-[27], 377 [32], 379-380 [40].
[2000] 1 WLR 1988 at 1992; [2000] 3 All ER 752 at 756.
[2001] ELR 64 at 72-74 [20]-[21] (QBD).
For example Ceylon University [ 1960] 1 WLR 223 (PC) ; [1960] 1 All ER 631 ; R v Aston University Senate; Ex parte Roffey [ 1969] 2 QB 538 ; R v Chelsea College of Art and Design; Ex parte Nash [ 2000] ELR 686 ; R v University of Saskatchewan; Ex parte King ( 1968) 1 DLR (3d) 721. See also, for review on contractual grounds , Olar v Laurentian University ( 2002) 165 OAC 1 .
Norrie [ 1984] 1 NZLR 129 at 135.
For example under the Review Act, s 18, Sch 1.
For much the same reasons as were mentioned, in another legal context, by Sedley LJ in Clark [ 2000] 1 WLR 1988 at 1992 ; [2000] 3 All ER 752 at 756. See joint reasons at [58].
See Kioa v West ( 1985) 159 CLR 550 at 633 ; Ridge v Baldwin [ 1964] AC 40 ; Calvin v Carr [ 1980] AC 574 at 592-593 (PC).
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang ( 1996) 185 CLR 259 at 271-272 , 291-293.
Berkeley Cleaning ( 1985) 7 FCR 575 at 578. See also Tooheys Ltd v Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( 1981) 36 ALR 64 at 79.