Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-n9d2k Total loading time: 0.197 Render date: 2021-10-18T17:02:30.430Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

11 - Reasons for administrative decisions: Legal framework and reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Matthew Groves
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
H. P. Lee
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Marilyn Pittard
Affiliation:
Professor and formerly Associate Dean (Postgraduate Studies), Faculty of Law, Monash University
Get access

Summary

To what extent are decision makers obliged to provide reasons for their administrative decisions? Should they be obliged to give reasons in all circumstances and for all decisions? Two decades ago, the then-Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Gibbs CJ, stated in the leading case of Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond:

The rules of natural justice are designed to ensure fairness in the making of a decision and it is difficult to see how the fairness of an administrative decision can be affected by what is done after the decision has been made.

In 2006, by way of contrast, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom in Phipps v The General Medical Council approved as applicable to administrative decision-making a statement in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd:

[J]ustice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost.

These statements reflect different approaches to the question of whether administrative decision makers and tribunals should provide reasons to the person affected by the decision. In the first statement by Gibbs CJ, the view is that providing reasons after a decision is made cannot ensure fairness in the decision which has already been made. The focus of the second statement by the UK Court of Appeal is the individual affected by the decision and his or her need to see that justice has been done.

Type
Chapter
Information
Australian Administrative Law
Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines
, pp. 172 - 184
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×