Re McBain; Ex parte Australia Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372. Issue: Did the application by the Catholics Bishop Conference to quash the decision amount to a 'matter' as required by s75(v) of the Constitution? Principle: No. There was no 'real and immediate' controversy about rights, duties or liabilities to be determined by the Court. Hypotheticals do not give rise to a matter and the Bishop's Conference had no more than a theoretical interest.
S

Applicants wanted to challenge a federal cabinet movement to protect the kakadu national park because they had mining interests and they thought that interest would be hindered

Hicks v Ruddock (2007) 156 FCR 574. Issue: Did the fact that the decision not to intervene with Mr Hick's detention was based on foreign affairs and/or diplomatic negotiations make it non-justiciable?. Principle: No. Rather than exclude areas totally from judicial review, justiciability should be decided upon the ability to examine the grounds of review on which the application was based.

A statutory provision that attempts to exclude the power or jurisdiction of courts to hear and determine judicial review proceedings or to grant remedies.
further barries where parliament attmpets to ensure certain government decisions are not challenged in the court

the courts will try and re construe the rpivate cause ineffective- here they said the power of the courts to review will be based on jurisdicitonal error

Read it down so words like decions and court in legislation are interpreted in the lens of whether parliament would mean that in terms of availability of judicial review

Express statutory provision which makes clear that breaches of certain provisions in the same Act are not invalid. Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146

A conferral of statutory power with no duty to either exercise the power or consider exercising the power. Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319

Imposing a time limit to commence judicial review proceedings. Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA 14

Restricting decisions and procedural information can interfere with the ability to judicially review a decision. Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 AJLR 890

BOND: Issue: Can action taken as part of pending proceeding be reviewable as 'decisions' or 'conduct' under the ADJR Act?

Principle: A 'decision' generally, but not always, is one that is final, determinative and operative. A 'step along the way' to a decision is not reviewable. A decision is a substantive determination provided for by the statute. 'Conduct' is procedural in nature. 'Action taken'.
The decision that Mr Bond would not be found fit and proper was not reviewable.
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990)170 CLR 321

RIGHT TO LIFE: Issue: Was a request to the secretary to take action to prevent a clinical trial of an 'abortion drug' because it was not in the public interest, reviewable under the ADJR Act?

Principle: Yes. Public interest was something that the secretary was statutorily mandated to consider.
Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health (1995) 56 FCR 50

KELSON: Issue: Was an inquiry by the Merit Protection and Review Agency into workplace harassment at the Australian War Memorial a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act?
Principle: Yes. It is a decision that affects the rights and obligations of an individual and does not involve a fragmentation of the decision-making process.
Kelson v Forward (1995) 60 FCR 39

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: Electricity Supply Association of Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2001) 113 FCR 230
Issue: Are media releases that state a legal position reviewable decisions for the purpose of the ADJR Act?
Principle: No. The 'decisions' did not determine rights or obligations. They had no consequences, nor the 'quality of finality'. Instead, they were 'opinions'.

EDELSTON:Edelsten v Health Insurance Commission (1990) 27 FCR 56
Issue: Were a preliminary investigation and a report into whether Dr Edelsten was claiming Medicare benefits for excessive services reviewable under the ADJR Act?
Principle: No. The investigation and report did not affect Dr Edelsten's rights or legitimate expectations. Whilst they may affect his reputation, they are no more than steps that may lead to an ultimate, operative determination (early stage of investigation).

YUSA BATTERIES:
Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 73 FCR 528
Issue: Is a letter of demand sent to Yuasa notifying it that it had incurred a late penalty and demanding payment an 'ADJR-reviewable' decision
Principle: No. The legislation does not make provision for the Commissioner to make a determination regarding the applicant's liability. The letter of demand is therefore, not a substantive determination

ROCHE PRODUCTS: Roche Products Pty Ltd v National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee (2007) 163 FCR 451
Issue: Was a decision to remove a weight control drug from the Poisons Standard administrative in character, and therefore reviewable under the ADJR Act?
Principle: No. Deciding the nature of a decision is an evaluative task that does not depend on one single consideration. The decision here was legislative (and therefore, not reviewable) because it. Determined future lawfulness; Was a part of a national system of control.Applied to the substance in general; Included broad policy considerations.Involved public consultation No merits review Required to be published

Merits view considers whether decisions are substantively correct, judicial review considers the legality of the decision.
considers whether decision-makers have exceeded their powers and functions, not whether a decision is the 'correct or preferable' one.

'The consequence is that the scope of judicial review must be defined not in terms of the protection of individual interests but in terms of the extent of power and legality of its exercise' (Brennan J, Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35-6)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s44(2A)(2A) Where a matter in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party is at any time pending in the High Court, the High Court may, upon the application of a party or of the High Court's own motion, remit the matter, or any part of the matter, to the Federal Court of Australia.

Associated:
Conferred by s32 of the Federal Court Act.To the extent that the Constitution permits, jurisdiction is conferred on the Court in respect of matters not otherwise within its jurisdiction that are associated with matters (the core matters ) in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked.'The conferral of jurisdiction in another, different, federal matter in respect of which jurisdiction could be, but has not been, conferred.’Declined in importance since s39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act.

Accrued:
An 'inherent' (i.e. common law) power of a superior court to settle a controversy by dealing with all the issues that arise out of 'common transactions and facts'.
Can include non-federal matters
Example: An ADJR matter and a tort matter (e.g. wrongful imprisonment) heard together.

Under s 474, Migration Act 1958 (Cth) decisions under the Act are final, so only limited jurisdiction (476A).
Does not preclude original jurisdiction of HC

Appeal on question of law
(1) A party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, on a question of law, from any decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding.

ADJR Act 1977, ss 5, 6, 7
5(1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds:

s476, Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
(1) Subject to this section, the Federal Circuit Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution.
(2) The Federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in relation to the following decisions]
(a) a primary decision;
(b) a privative clause decision;

S77(iii) Constitution:Vests state courts with federal jurisdiction

JUDICIARY ACT 190
2ss39(2) & 68 implement s77(iii) by conferring federal jurisdiction regarding civil and criminal matters.
Implied power to grant an injunction

Federal Court Act (Cth): S32A deals with pending Federal Court applications ‘in chambers’

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act (Cth) 1987: Vests state supreme courts with the jurisdiction of other supreme courts.

S73 Constitution (Appellate): ‘Question of law of public importance’ (s35A(a)(i) Judiciary Act)
‘Interests of the administration of Justice’ (s35A(b) Judiciary Act)

S75 Constitution (Original): IN all matters:S75(v) Where a 'constitutional writ' is sought ...against an officer of the Commonwealth
S75(iii) Commonwealth is a party,

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): S30 – original jurisdiction for constitutional interpretation
S32 – remedies not granted by the High Court's original jurisdiction
S33 – habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto
S35 – Appeals from State courts

State Judicial Review Schemes, which arise from Supreme Courts' position as superior courts.
NSW: Declared in Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 23. Administrative Law Division.

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR280.

1. The question whether a word or phrase in a statute is to be given its ordinary meaning or some technical or other meaning is a question of law.. .
2. The ordinary meaning of a word or its non-legal technical meaning is a question of fact.. .
3. The meaning of a technical legal term is a question of law.. .
4. The effect or construction of a term whose meaning or interpretation is established is a question of law...
5. The question whether facts fully found fall within the provision of a statutory enactment properly construed is generally a question of law.. .
   

Jurisdictional error Where a decision-maker has gone beyond the limits of their powers ... where he or she does something that he or she is not entitled to do

May arise in different ways. For e.g., a decision-maker may ask the wrong question, ignore relevant material, rely on irrelevant material or breach natural justice.
Traditionally, jurisdictional error has been defined more narrowly in relation to inferior courts than administrative tribunals (Craig v South Australia)

In Australia, jurisdictional error has constitutional significance. S 75(v) ensures the availability of judicial review for jurisdictional error (Plaintiff s157)
A decision that is found to be affected by a jurisdictional error will be void

Error within jurisdiction:Where a decision-maker incorrectly decides something which he or she is authorised to decide. The 'authority to go wrong. '
Will not make the decision void. Instead will be set aside (if there is a statutory appeal) or certiorari will apply
Where a decision-maker incorrectly decides something which he or she is authorised to decide.

Error on the 'face of the record' : what is the record?= document that initates the proceedings, the pleadings, the adjudication, BUT NOT the evidence, the reasons the transcripts

A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds
(a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision;
See also s 6, which relates to conduct.
No need to make out a jurisdictional error

There must be no islands of power immune from supervision and restraint Kirk V industrial court NSW. Some decisions belong within the field of politics not the law Victoria V Commonwealth and Hayden.

case of council of civil service unions the minister for the civil service opened up rogative powers to judicial review leaving justiciabililty to be determined by reference to the subject matter of the decision in question

the federal court has held that the relevant factor when determining justiciability is not the source of the power but the nature and subject matter of the decision minister for arts V pico Wallsend. For example in this case the whole subject matter of the decission involved complex policy questions relating to the environment which is beyond review by the court.

in the 1980s the courts began to reject the traditional view fat decisions made by ministers etc were non justiciable.

FAI Insurance V winneke Governor General acting on advice of ministers was required to accord procedural fairness when deciding to renew an approval to insure workers compensation liability in Victoria. O'Shea free South Australia= the exercise of a statutory power by the governor in council made on the advice of cabinet was reviewable

cabinet decisions are less likely to be non justiciable because of their highly political nature

Subject matter of the decision Include decisiones relating to removal of a minister from office, appointment to judicial office appointment of Queens council decisions concerning deployment of armed forces nature of these powers places them within the exclusive provenance of the executive.