LAW00117 Administrative Law
9 Pages2439 Words220 Views
Added on 2020-04-01
LAW00117 Administrative Law
Added on 2020-04-01
ShareRelated Documents
LAW00117 Administrative Law (2017)INTRODUCTIONAdministrative law is considerably the only discipline that seeks to address the legality and morality of actions that may be taken by people and agencies which are mandated with power. This discipline therefore seeks to control and ensure the conformity to the laid principles and thatdecisions or actions made can be accounted for.1Administrative decisions are one of the most controversial decisions in both legal and scholarly debates. There is a general consensus that decisions are a result of a process that should when examined based on their merits will adequately justify the result reached. This happens so to ensure that Executive acts conform to the law in that each act should plausibly provide a reasonable explanation in order warrant an explanation of powers exercised by state or the agencies of state and even public officers. Every law requires, however unreasoned, irrational, illogical, or unreasonable they may be, that such reasons when examined , will make no difference if another person in a capacity of a decision-maker might have been able enough to reason the issue in question to that conclusion. 2When the courts come to interpret the constitutionality of certain decisions it is called a judicial review which determines the conformity of conducts of an administrative agency actions to the laid down law. Judicial review by a court looks only at the lawfulness or legality of the decision – its ‘legal merits’, you might say, putting aside the policy merits of the decision as a matter outside the portfolio of the courts.3This essay will examine the steps that would be taken to challenge the decision of the Minister ofTransport and Civil Aviation Flying Dragon Airlines and the decision by the Attorney General’s Department to indict Thor on New charges. It is a general counsel to also challenge their legality 1Tom Round, Study Guide for LAW00117 Administrative Law (School of Law & Justice: Southern Cross University, 2016). 2Steven Rares, “Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions ; Should There be a 21st-Century Rethink?”, (speech, UNSW, Federal Court of Australia 15 October 2014), http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-201410153 LAW00117 Study Guide (2016), p [14].
by examining the existing legal arguments. In this essay, Flying Dragon Airlines and Thor Thorson will be referred to as Appellant One and Appellant Two respectively.STEPS TO BE TAKEN CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDERThe client Flying Dragon Airlines to appeal the decision by the Minister by seeking a judicial review on the interpretation of the decisions of the Minister pursuant to article 101 and article `103 and for the merits of an administrative decision by the Minister its operations.As an advocate for the Flying Dragon Airline herein, the Appellant One, it would be necessary toadvise the client to seek an interpretation of the court on the legality of this decision by looking the issues of concern that the said decision is ought to be premised on and how their possible violation led to the said decision. Such violationThe Appellant One, therefore, would seek clarification on a possible commission of contravention of law based on; broad ultra vires, narrow ultra vires, denial of a procedural justiceand fairness and if there was an erroneous commission of illegality in the process of a decision-making. Broad ultra vires: The Appellant One would be advised also to seek a court injunction to stop the decision from being effected and find fault with the decision to suspend its operations. In this instance, Flying Dragon Airlines would consider asking the court to find fault with the Minister’s actions as violating the ‘spirit’ (the moral obligation} and the ‘letter” (the constitutionality) of the provisionof the said Air Flights Act 2017. To this effect, therefore, the court will be asked to determine that any action within the framework of the statutory power, the Minister’s decisions exceeded some of the provisions of the Acts in question or in a way that would be deemed by the court as inappropriate. Inviting court to look into issues that would amount to be types of errors that the courts began to identify under this notion of broader ultra vires based on these issues:a)Whether the Minister acted on evidence;
b)Whether the Minister acted unreasonably;c)Whether the Minister misused his exercise of discretionary powersd)Whether the Minister acted out of malice Narrow ultra viresThe law or statutory Acts provide for individuals or state agencies to act within the scope of the powers provided for them expressly or to act in a way that does follow the prescribed method. If an agency acts outside this scope of its statutory powers or in contravention of these powers then these the legitimacy of these powers must be questioned and subjected to review. If a statuterequires the agency to do something in a particular way, and it does it in some other way, it has also acted beyond its powers.IT would be of judicial significance to ask the court to interrogate whether the Minister acted in contravention of this said Act by misusing his discretionary powers.LEGAL ARGUMENTSNo evidence’ as a ground for the suspension of Flying Dragon AirlinesIn this principle, any decision must be made upon establishment of evidence subject an independent investigation process that may bring incriminating issues on the conduct of the affected party. 4 This provides the ground for misuse of discretionary power and is seemingly one of the bases of the violation of the letter of the law by acts of ulterior acts.It was not proper for the Minister to have relied on an article appearing on a newspaper column that suggested Alice had knowledge that their flights were unsafe. In my opinion and in the words of Alice her decision to advise her nephew Julian out of applying for a job as a fight 4 Ashbridge Investments v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965)1 WLR 1320 at 1326; In the R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore (1965) 1 QB 456, (1965)488, 490; In Coleen Properties v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1971) 1 WLR 433
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.