Theory of Administrative Law

This essay examines the mechanisms and processes of administrative law, including judicial and merit review, and the role of administrative tribunals in decision-making. It also discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts and the standard of review applied in judicial review.

Running head: THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Theory of Administrative Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
It is important to state that from the very beginning that the subject-matter of
administrative law relied upon the principles of fundamental values. In this regard, it is
noteworthy to mention here that the principles of accountability, rationality, decision-making and
rule of law are consistent with the concept of “administrative justice”. The concept and
mechanisms of administrative law is a long debated topic which is a matter of concern for the
contemporary authors1. The essay is commissioned to examine the mechanisms of administrative
law which proved to be inefficient in providing appropriate justice to individuals. Therefore it
can be agreed that an individual has to rely upon the Court of justice by ignoring the action taken
by the Administrative tribunals.
In order emphasize the action of the administrative tribunals it is important to explain the
functionality. Administrative tribunals are regarded as governmental agencies specialized in
dealing with judicial procedure that has been established under the legislative framework of
federal and provincial government. However various public authorities and public boards are
entrusted with the power of decision making which includes- administrative tribunals,
administrative boards and other public bodies. It is noteworthy to mention here that the
administrative tribunals follow the basic principles of common laws and applies the statutes
accordingly. However, the procedural rules are also applicable and therefore the administrative
tribunal is bound to follow the procedural constraints. Therefore, it can be stated that while
performing judicial and quasi-judicial functions the statutory decision makers are governed by
the principles of common law2. However, it can be observed that the disputing parties sometimes
require the formal procedures of Court for resolving the matter concerned. Therefore, in such
1 Asimow, Michael. "Five models of administrative adjudication." The American Journal of Comparative Law 63.1
(2015): 3-32.
2 Amoroso, Daniele. "Judicial Abdication in Foreign Affairs and the Effectiveness of International Law." Chinese
Journal of International Law 14.1 (2015): 99-134.

2THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
cases the disputing parties are at the authority to question the administrative proceedings and the
substantial question of law involved in relation to the principles of natural justice.
In some cases it can be observed on the part of the administrative tribunals to
contemplate a decision which is informal in nature. In such cases, the impact of the decision
given by the administrative tribunal may be relatively minor as compared to courts and the
parties involved in such administrative proceedings shall not be entitled to natural justice3.
Therefore, in such cases the Courts are at the authority evaluate the legality of the decision given
by the administrative tribunals by relying upon the doctrine of fairness.
It can be rightly stated that Courts are entrusted with supervisory jurisdiction on the
actions performed by the administrative tribunals, boards and other public bodies. However, in
cases where the disputing parties are affected by the decision taken by the administrative
tribunals may present an application before the Court to review the decision of the administrative
tribunal. Such process is considered as judicial review which involves the application of both
procedural judicial review and substantial judicial review. Procedural judicial review is
conducted by the Courts when the decision taken by the administrative tribunal has not complied
with procedural fairness. However, the process of substantive judicial review challenges the
decision of the administrative bodies itself4. If it appears to the parties that there has been
illegality and irrationality in the decision taken by the administrative tribunal, then the disputing
parties are at the opportunity to apply for substantial judicial review.
3 Bernatt, Maciej. "Transatlantic Perspective on Judicial Deference in Administrative Law." Colum. J. Eur. L. 22
(2015): 275.
4 Bosland, Jason, and Jonathan Gill. "The principle of open justice and the judicial duty to give public reasons."
Melb. UL Rev. 38 (2014): 482.

3THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
It can be mentioned that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts over the administrative
tribunals is governed by the rule of law. Therefore, the Parliament and the provincial legislatures
do not have the authority to exclude the right to judicial review as the individuals are dependent
on the rulings of the Court as they are at the impression that whether the administrative tribunals
have acted according to the principles of law5. It can be stated that the right to exercise judicial
review is discretionary and the Courts are at the authority to perform judicial review whenever
necessary. In this regard, the standard of review can be emphasized which refers to the process of
review that should be determined by the courts while deferring the decision made by an
administrative authority rather than overriding the decision. The review of administrative action
is approached by the Courts for the purpose of determining the issues in concern.
Traditionally, the Courts applied the test of standard reasonableness and correctness in
identifying that whether a decision is a subject to judicial review or not. However, it requires
significant period for identifying the amount of unreasonableness and irrationality in the
decision. Therefore, in order to deal with such confusion the standard of patent unreasonableness
was enacted for the purpose of dealing with situations where the legislative framework contains a
privative clause. The presence of the privative clause signifies that the decision made by the
administrative authority cannot be reviewed by the Courts. Therefore the standard of patent
unreasonableness prevents the intention of the legislature to exclude the practice of judicial
review6. Therefore, privative clause may be include in the statute of a tribunal which limits the
practice of judicial review thereby declaring the decision of the tribunal to be final and binding
upon the parties. In relation to the privative clause the supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised
5 Buck, Trevor, Richard Kirkham, and Brian Thompson. The ombudsman enterprise and administrative justice.
Routledge, 2016.
6 Bunjevac, Tin. "From individual judge to judicial bureaucracy: The emergence of judicial councils and the
changing nature of judicial accountability in court administration." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 806.

4THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
by the Courts. However, the existence of a statutory right of appeal does not signify that that the
decision taken by the administrative tribunal is final and binding. In this regard, the Court has the
authority to refuse the application of judicial review of an administrative decision unless and
until there has been exhaustion of statutory rights of appeal.
The Courts are at the authority to consider the expertise of the tribunal in matters which
involves the substantial question of law and fact. In this regard, if it comes to the knowledge of
the Courts regarding the fact that the tribunal are not specialized to deal with specific matters
then the Courts shall perform judicial review. In case where the issues contained in the matter in
concern relates to the rights of the disputing parties, the intervention of Courts is required. In this
regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that the remedial jurisdiction of the Court to perform
judicial review is limited to the powers that have been depicted in the appropriate statute7. In this
regard, an example of the powers of the Ontario Divisional Court can be illustrated which are
outlined in Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act and in Section 18.1(3) of the Federal
Court Act in case of Federal Courts8.
It is important to state here that the Courts are entrusted with the power to grant relief
against an order given by an administrative tribunal with an exception of costs. For instance, it
may occur on the part of the Court to order an administrative tribunal to reconsider the matter
and make the decision accordingly which may happen as a result of an application for judicial
review applied by the parties to dispute. However, the Court does not provide limitations on an
application from doing any act or refrain from doing any act in relation to the application for
7 Busch, Jost-Dietrich. "Vi the administration of justice in the federal system of the federal republic of germany." A
Comparative Study: 139.
8 Cane, Peter. "Records, Reasons and Rationality in Judicial Control of Administrative Power: England, the US and
Australia." Israel Law Review 48.3 (2015): 309-328.

5THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
judicial review9. It is obvious that both the Federal Court and the Divisional Court are not at the
authority to award damages on judicial review. However both the Federal Courts and the
Divisional Courts are at the authority to make interim orders which includes both staying and
suspending orders involving an administrative proceeding pending the application for judicial
review. It can be rightly mentioned that the power of the Federal and Divisional Courts proved to
be significant for two reasons. Firstly, the decision taken by an administrative authority shall not
be pending to judicial review automatically. Secondly, most of the administrative tribunals are
not entrusted with a power to make staying order of the decision made by them which is pending
review. In such cases, if it appears to such administrative tribunal that it shall be appropriate to
suspend the decision made by it while an application for judicial review is pending, then in this
regard such tribunal has no authority. The Courts are only at the authority to suspend or stay an
order.
In order to proceed with the mechanisms of administrative law the fundamental elements
of Australian administrative law can be emphasized- judicial review and merits review. The
subject-matter of judicial review is concerned with the legitimacy of administrative decisions
however the concept of merit review deals with the part of a decision carried out by different
public authorities10. It is worth mentioning that the distinction between judicial and merit review
enumerated as a result of the separation of powers which is commonly practiced in the
Australian jurisdiction. The process of merit review is conducted in order to ensure the
rationality or correctness of a legally sound decision made by a public authority. It is evident that
the Administrative tribunals while conducting merit reviews do not follow the strict rules of
9 Dalal, Seema. "Administrative law and judicial review of administrative action with a special emphasis on the writ
of certiorari."
10 Daly, Paul. "Best Practices in Administrative Decision-Making: Viewing the Copyright Board of Canada in a
Comparative Light." (2016).

6THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
evidence and therefore the process is less formal that is being followed in courts. In this regard
mention can be made of few administrative tribunals involved in the process of merit review.
These are the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
(ADT) and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The fundamental principle
of judicial review can be applied when the administrative tribunals abuse their powers by acting
outside their jurisdictional limits. In this regard, the courts are vested with an authority to
interfere with the decisions made by an administrative tribunal. However, the process of judicial
review do not prevent the administrative bodies from making decisions, it prevents them from
making any decision which is irrational and illegal11. Therefore, it can be rightly stated that the
decision of an administrative tribunal can be interfered with if any illegality or irrationality is
observed in the process. It was observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex
parte Bentley [1994] QB 34912 that the decision taken by the administrative tribunals by
excluding the application of the principles of both common and statutory laws from the purview
of judicial review. It was observed that the administrative tribunal refused to provide appropriate
reasons for such exclusion of both common and statutory laws. Therefore, it was observed that
further appeal was made to the Court of Justice and it was held that that the decision made by the
administrative authority was illegal and irrational13. It is worth mentioning that the Courts are at
the authority to set aside or quash an order if the decision taken is irrational or illegal. In Posner
v Collector for Interstate Destitute Persons14 it was held by the Court that the decision made by
the administrative tribunal was outside its jurisdictional boundary and therefore was invalid.
11 Ebisui, Minawa, Sean Cooney, and Colin Fenwick. "1. Resolving individual labour disputes: A general
introduction." Resolving Individual Labour Disputes: 1.
12 [1994] QB 349
13 Freckelton, Alan. "The chancing concept of'unreasonableness' in Australian administrative law." AIAL Forum. No.
78. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2014.
14 (1947) ALR 61

7THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
It is important on the part of the administrative authorities to provide appropriate reasons
in regard to the decision taken by the administrative tribunals15. It is essential that the
administrative authorities should provide appropriate justifications regarding the usage of
common and statutory laws on which it relied upon in making decision. Therefore, it shall be
easier for individuals to understand both the factual and legal conditions depicted in the decisions
made by the administrative tribunals. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention that the process
of judicial review has been applied to the day to day issues faced by the government authorities.
However, such activities could be easily recognized by the courts in a short span of period. In
this context, the traditional inherent jurisdiction applied by the procedure of judicial review by
the administrative tribunals could be easily restricted. The Court of Justice was at the authority to
question the application of law applied by the administrative bodies in making decision. If the
administrative tribunals exercised their powers outside their jurisdictional boundaries set by the
provisions of statutory law and common law in regard to natural justice then the Courts could
recognize such boundaries16. The cases involving procedural challenges can be interfered by the
Courts by setting aside the decision made by the tribunals by applying the formal procedures.
It can be emphasized that there is an opportunity on the part of an aggrieved party to
present an appeal which involves substantial question of law before the Administrative Decisions
Tribunal. In this regard, the appeal involving the question of law could be reviewed by the
Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). However various intricacies may arose that whether
the appellant has identified the involved question of law. In some cases when no question of law
15 Galligan, Brian, and FL Ted Morton. "Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights."
Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights. Routledge, 2017. 27-50.
16 Gardbaum, Stephen. "Separation of powers and the growth of judicial review in established democracies (or why
has the model of legislative supremacy mostly been withdrawn from sale?)." The American Journal of Comparative
Law 62.3 (2014): 613-640.

8THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
is identified then it can be established there is no jurisdiction. In addition, it can be stated that
individuals with lack of legal knowledge would face great difficulty in identifying the hidden
question of law. In this regard, the aggrieved party can present further appeal before the Court in
order in order to get relief. In this regard, it can be emphasized that the Administrative Decisions
Tribunal (ADT) can provide various methods of alternative dispute resolution which includes-
neutral-evaluation, conciliation and mediation. However, these methods of dispute resolution
were considered to be less formal and therefore the decision made with the application of these
methods cannot be relied upon17. The individuals relied on the decisions of the courts as the
procedure was formal which included the application of both statutory and procedural laws18.
Therefore it can be stated that there exists an interrelation between government administrative
bodies and other independent authorities such as administrative tribunals and ombudsmen.
However, in case the disputes are not resolved through the independent functionaries, the matter
in dispute can be referred to the Courts.
It is evident that in many countries the branch of administrative law is often treated as
constitutional laws. It can be noted that from the very beginning the concept of administrative
law is efficiently applied to the relationship between the citizens and the state19. In this regard, it
is noteworthy to mention that the branch of the Australian constitutional law effectively interacts
with the application of administrative law in many ways. For instance, mention can be made
about the principles of a Communist Party which requires the decision of an executive to act near
the boundaries of constitutional powers which in most of the cases are subjected to judicial
17 Bateman, Will, and Leighton McDonald. "The Normative Structure of Australian Administrative Law." Fed. L.
Rev. 45 (2017): 153.
18 Almqvist, Jessica. "A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for International Criminal
Justice." Leiden Journal of International Law 28.1 (2015): 91-112.
19 Guglyuvatyy, Evgney, and Chris Evans. "Administrative approaches to tax dispute resolution: alternative
perspectives from Australia and Russia." J. Comp. L. 10 (2015): 365.

9THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
review. Therefore, in this regard, question may appear that to what extent the principles of
administrative justice can be secured by the constitution by establishing the process of judicial
review in relation to the decision made by the administrative tribunals.
Modern scholars are of the opinion that individuals have the right to appeal to the Courts
in order for the purpose of seeking judicial review of the decisions taken by the executive which
adversely affected their rights20. The appellant shall have the right to full appeal after the
declaration of the initial decision taken by the administrative body. Therefore, the parties to
dispute are at the authority to have the material facts and merits to be determined by the
application of the Courts21. This can be only done by the parties to dispute only if the matter
related appears to be utmost importance to the concerned parties. Therefore, the Constitution of
Australia is vested with the power to allocate the federal legislative, the executive and judicial
functions to the Commonwealth Parliament, the federal executive and the High Court and lower
courts of Australia respectively. In R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia
(1956) 94 CLR 25422 which is popularly known as the Boilermaker’s case was a landmark case
in the history of Australia where the decision made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation
and Arbitration were held to be unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia. It was observed
that the Boilermakers’ Society of Australia is a union which did not obey the orders given by the
Commonwealth Court in regard to an industrial dispute which arose between the Boilermakers’
and the Metal Trades Employers’ Association. It was observed that the Boilermakers’ presented
an appeal before the High Court by challenging the orders as they found the decision made by
the Commonwealth Court to be invalid and irrational. In this case, it was held by the High Court
20 Hooper, Grant Robert. "Judicial Review and Proportionality: Making a Far-Reaching Difference to Administrative
Law in Australia or a Misplaced and Injudicious Search for Administrative Justice?." (2017).
21 Johnston, Peter, and Peter McNab. "The evolution of state adjudicative power as an alternative to state judicial or
administrative power." AIAL Forum. No. 81. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2015.
22 (1956) 94 CLR 254

10THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
of Australia that the judicial power entrusted to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and
Arbitration cannot be vested in a tribunal which exercises non-judicial functions.
The High Court of Australia in this regard made a series of consideration for the purpose
of resolving issues which involves the exercise of judicial power. The view of the decision maker
occupies the central in the determination of the issue23. However, the consequences that shall
affect the interests of the individuals could only be determined by employing judicial power. In
the perspective of modern authors the application of judicial control can be excluded from the
matter involved it was based on the application of executive power. In this regard, it can be noted
that in case of settling industrial disputes, the final determination of the dispute can be only
finalized by the judiciary and not by the executive. However, some scholars were of the opinion
that according to the principles of Australian Law, the important decisions which require the
application of law must be decided by the Courts. According to contemporary authors, the
decision taken by the administrative tribunal has been considered to be insufficient to provide
relief to the parties to dispute24. Therefore, according to the perspective of modern scholars, the
decisions involving judicial review should be left for the Courts to decide. However, under the
Australian Law, the exact amount of judicial control which is necessary in deciding a particular
matter is unclearly depicted25. The matters involving substantial consequences shall be
considered by the Courts however; in case if any restrictions are imposed on the Courts then the
ability of the Courts to reconsider the matter shall be objected on constitutional grounds. In Cf
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 24526 the High
23 Kirkham, Richard, and Alexander Allt. "Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes: The
Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section." Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 38.2
(2016): 211-227.
24 Mead, Joseph, and Nicholas A. Fromherz. "Choosing a Court to Review the Executive." (2015).
25 Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges." Revista Forumul
Judecatorilor (2014): 133.
26 110 ALR 97

11THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Court of Australia provided favorable decisions in regard to attempts of the administrative bodies
in conferring judicial powers upon non-judicial authorities. In this case it was observed that the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not vested with an authority to exercise
judicial functions.
It can be observed that in some cases the High Court of Australia held the decision of the
administrative tribunals to be constitutional and rational. In Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs it was held by the Court that the
administrative authorities have acted within the executive powers by detaining the aliens while
an executive determination was pending on their part. In this case the Court was at the authority
to hold the decision taken by the administrative authorities to be outside the executive powers
because the aliens could be deprived of their rights and interests without the application of
judicial decision. However, the importance of immigration application cannot be ignored as it
requires judicial control. The importance of executive powers exercised on the part of the
administrative authorities has been observed in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 127. According to the provisions of Section 75(v) of the
Constitution of Australia the High Court is vested with original jurisdiction in matters involving
writ of mandamus or injunction against an officer of Commonwealth. However modern jurists
asserted that Section 75(v) do not provide any right to obtain mandamus or prohibition, it only
provides with a jurisdiction.
Most of the countries have adopted the principles of administrative law within their legal
system. The Australian Constitution adopted the concept of administrative law and thereby
applied innovative measures to uplift the accountability of the executive. With the development
27 (1996) 189 CLR 1

12THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
of the principles of common law and statutory laws in Australia in the past two decades there has
been establishment of legislative and institutional framework as well for the purpose of
providing administrative justice. In this regard, the application of administrative law has been
implemented by the Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth), the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth)
and the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth)28. In this regard, it can be mentioned that the fundamental
concept of administrative law was concerned with the rights of individuals. However, the
administrative tribunals failed in their part to provide appropriate relief to the parties in dispute.
In the perspectives of modern scholars the individuals are vested with the right to seek
judicial review of a decision given by the administrative tribunal or any other government
authorities that would adversely affect their rights to justice. In this regard, the parties to dispute
are vested with the right to present an appeal before the Court questioning the substantial
grounds of judicial review. Some authors were of the view that in cases where an appeal arises
from the decision made by a government official to an administrative tribunal; the need to
conduct judicial review arises in this context29. Therefore, in case of issues of importance arising
between parties to dispute the Court shall be at the authority to review the legality and merits of
the decision given by the administrative tribunal that is being challenged. It has been argued that
the abovementioned statements exist efficiently in the subject-matter of administrative law of
Australia. However, it has been already explained that Section 75(v) of the Australian
Constitution grants the High Court with a constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose of ensuring
lawful conduct on the part of the Commonwealth officers. It is noteworthy to mention here that
such constitutional jurisdiction cannot be overridden by any existing clause which seeks to
28 Preston, Brian J. "Characteristics of successful environmental courts and tribunals." Journal of Environmental law
26.3 (2014): 365-393.
29 Price, Zachary S. "Law Enforcement as Political Question." Notre Dame L. Rev. 91 (2015): 1571.

13THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
separate the functions of the executive from the purview of judicial review. In addition, it can be
stated that in the absence of Section 75(v) there exists no other constitutional mechanism which
will ensure that the principles of common law and the provisions of administrative justice are not
eroded by the acts of the Parliament30.
In recent era, several attempts were made by the Federal government for the purpose of
removing decisions involving immigration issues from the scope of judicial review. In this
regard the Courts of Justice were heavily criticized from time to time for making decisions by
depending upon the grounds of policy and material facts rather than the grounds involving strict
legality merits. Therefore, amendments were introduced to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in Part
8 in order to provide restrictions to the ground available to the Federal Court for judicial review
which includes- breach of natural justice, irrationality and unreasonableness. However, the
Migration Legislation Amendment Bill, 1998 initiated to replace Part 8 of the amendment with
privative clause. In this regard, the Bill proposed that the jurisdictional power of the Federal
Court shall be completely removed in reviewing the decisions taken by certain administrative
tribunals31. Further the Bill prevented the intervention of the High Courts in matters in relation to
the decision taken by the Federal Court.
It is evident that administrative tribunals derive their powers from the legislative bodies
for the purpose of adjudicating matters which are complex in nature and comprises of specialized
areas. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the decisions and actions of the administrative
tribunals are often challenged by the disputing parties due to the nature of the decision. In
Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 4432 is a Canadian case
30 Scott, Katharine, and Tom Tabori. "Alternatives to Litigation in Public Law Disputes."
31 Sutherland, Carolyn, and Joellen Riley. "Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in 2015." Journal of
Industrial Relations 58.3 (2016): 388-401.
32 2015 SCC 44

14THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
study in which it was observed that the administrative tribunal defended its own decision by
conducting the process of judicial review. It was observed in this case that the Ontario Power
Generation sought judicial review regarding the decision of the Board as the decision was
granted in favor of the Board. In this regard, the Ontario Power Generation challenged the
decision of the tribunal by presenting an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore,
it was held that the decision of the administrative tribunal can be challenged before the higher
authorities for further appeal.
In the conclusion it can be stated that in practice the mechanisms of administrative law do
not provide relief to the disputing parties efficiently and therefore the disputing parties in most of
the cases seek relief from the Courts by ignoring the decision provided by the principles of
administrative tribunals.

15THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
References:
Cases:
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs 110 ALR 97
Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44
Posner v Collector for Interstate Destitute Persons (1947) ALR 61
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349
Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1
Books and Journals:
Almqvist, Jessica. "A Human Rights Appraisal of the Limits to Judicial Independence for
International Criminal Justice." Leiden Journal of International Law 28.1 (2015): 91-112.
Amoroso, Daniele. "Judicial Abdication in Foreign Affairs and the Effectiveness of International
Law." Chinese Journal of International Law 14.1 (2015): 99-134.
Asimow, Michael. "Five models of administrative adjudication." The American Journal of
Comparative Law 63.1 (2015): 3-32.
Bernatt, Maciej. "Transatlantic Perspective on Judicial Deference in Administrative Law."
Colum. J. Eur. L. 22 (2015): 275.
Bosland, Jason, and Jonathan Gill. "The principle of open justice and the judicial duty to give
public reasons." Melb. UL Rev. 38 (2014): 482.
Buck, Trevor, Richard Kirkham, and Brian Thompson. The ombudsman enterprise and
administrative justice. Routledge, 2016.

16THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Bunjevac, Tin. "From individual judge to judicial bureaucracy: The emergence of judicial
councils and the changing nature of judicial accountability in court administration." UNSWLJ 40
(2017): 806.
Busch, Jost-Dietrich. "Vi the administration of justice in the federal system of the federal
republic of germany." A Comparative Study: 139.
Bateman, Will, and Leighton McDonald. "The Normative Structure of Australian Administrative
Law." Fed. L. Rev. 45 (2017): 153.
Cane, Peter. "Records, Reasons and Rationality in Judicial Control of Administrative Power:
England, the US and Australia." Israel Law Review 48.3 (2015): 309-328.
Dalal, Seema. "Administrative law and judicial review of administrative action with a special
emphasis on the writ of certiorari."
Daly, Paul. "Best Practices in Administrative Decision-Making: Viewing the Copyright Board of
Canada in a Comparative Light." (2016).
Ebisui, Minawa, Sean Cooney, and Colin Fenwick. "1. Resolving individual labour disputes: A
general introduction." Resolving Individual Labour Disputes: 1.
Freckelton, Alan. "The chancing concept of'unreasonableness' in Australian administrative law."
AIAL Forum. No. 78. Australian Institute of Administrative Law, 2014.
Galligan, Brian, and FL Ted Morton. "Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill
of rights." Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights. Routledge, 2017. 27-50.
Gardbaum, Stephen. "Separation of powers and the growth of judicial review in established
democracies (or why has the model of legislative supremacy mostly been withdrawn from
sale?)." The American Journal of Comparative Law 62.3 (2014): 613-640.

17THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Guglyuvatyy, Evgney, and Chris Evans. "Administrative approaches to tax dispute resolution:
alternative perspectives from Australia and Russia." J. Comp. L. 10 (2015): 365.
Hooper, Grant Robert. "Judicial Review and Proportionality: Making a Far-Reaching Difference
to Administrative Law in Australia or a Misplaced and Injudicious Search for Administrative
Justice?." (2017).
Johnston, Peter, and Peter McNab. "The evolution of state adjudicative power as an alternative to
state judicial or administrative power." AIAL Forum. No. 81. Australian Institute of
Administrative Law, 2015.
Kirkham, Richard, and Alexander Allt. "Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes:
The Ombudsman, Tribunals and Administrative Justice Section." Journal of Social Welfare and
Family Law 38.2 (2016): 211-227.
Mead, Joseph, and Nicholas A. Fromherz. "Choosing a Court to Review the Executive." (2015).
Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges."
Revista Forumul Judecatorilor (2014): 133.
Preston, Brian J. "Characteristics of successful environmental courts and tribunals." Journal of
Environmental law 26.3 (2014): 365-393.
Price, Zachary S. "Law Enforcement as Political Question." Notre Dame L. Rev. 91 (2015):
1571.
Scott, Katharine, and Tom Tabori. "Alternatives to Litigation in Public Law Disputes."
Sutherland, Carolyn, and Joellen Riley. "Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in
2015." Journal of Industrial Relations 58.3 (2016): 388-401.
Welch, Michael. "Economic man and diffused sovereignty: a critique of Australia’s asylum
regime." Crime, Law and Social Change 61.1 (2014): 81-107.

18THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW