unitedstatessecurities

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, January 28, 2013

PART E - ACCESS TO COURT & JUDICIAL REMEDIES - DISCRETION OF COURT TO REFUSE RELIEF - HIGH COURT & GENERAL LAW

Posted on 7:00 AM by Unknown
 DISCRETION OF COURT TO REFUSE RELIEF
2.1    High Court & General Law

-    Allars 13.8.1- the court has a discretion to decline relief even though an administrative action is justiciable, the plaintiff has standing, and a ground of review is established.  
-    Prohibition and certiorari may be declined due to delay, prejudice to the respondent outweighing the grant of relief, and futility.  
-    Ex Parte Mullen; Re Wigley set out the discretion to decline grant of mandamus, namely, the court will, “refuse an application for the prerogative writ of mandamus where there is an alternative remedy at law which is equally convenient, beneficial and effectual… and where the statute imposing the duty provides a specific remedy for the enforcement of that duty, the remedy of the prerogative writ of mandamus is not available.”  
-    Also, they will not grant it if the application is not made in good faith or to achieve some indirect purpose, or there is an ulterior motive.
-    Allars 13.8.2-  Injunction and declaration are discretionary remedies.  An important principle is that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to grant an injunction to restrain an actual or threatened breach of the criminal law is used only in exceptional cases, like A-G v Harris 1961, here shopkeepers complained their trade was reduced by unfair competition of flower sellers at a stall near a cemetery on Sundays in breach of a regulation.  Since the flower sellers were ‘deliberately flouting the law’, and the fines were small compared to the profits, an injunction was granted to restrain the illegal activities.

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2001) 75 ALJR 52
•    Gleeson, Gaudron & Gummow JJ- conclude the HC can grant remedy of prohibition where there has been a matter of procedural fairness. They regard jurisdiction as an area of procedural fairness. Can  grant prohibition. Use original intent theory.
•    Kirby has different approach to remedies available- rejects the approach of looking at original intent of the framers. Writs of prohibition and mandamus were not fixed for all time when the constitution was framed. Developments in England shouldn’t influence constitutional remedies in Australia.
•    A lack of procedural fairness is an error of jurisdiction. 
•    Where PF is breached resulting in excess jurisdiction, prohibition is given almost as of right.
o    Kirby believes certiorari is more appropriate remedy
•    NB: the court says they have discretion- don’t need to grant the remedies if see a reason why they shouldn’t.
•    Relief only withheld where:
o    Compliance with procedural fairness would have made no difference;
o    Where a person has been slow to assert their rights;
o    Where a person may be taken to have waived rights;
o    Where the argument/breach of PF has been trivial;
o    Where decision would result in disproportionate inconvenience or injustice. NB Project Blue Sky
•    Courts must adhere to the fair hearing rules. This means govt officials given power must work within that power, not acting on  “some personal predilection”. Similarly, it won’t be necessary have proceedings based on “insignificant, purely formal and immaterial mistakes”.
•    Question of fact- the impact a hearing would have had on the tribunal’s decision.
•    Constitutional writs of mandamus and prohibition are available, as are those of certiorari and injunction

2.2    ADJR Act

Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533   

Facts: Moss was a doctor charged under the Crimes Act (Cth) of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. In committal proceedings a prima facie case found under a different offence. Magistrate refused to allow cross-examination of Crown witness and indicated he did not propose to discharge Moss under the Justices Act. Moss commenced under ADJR act for review magistrate’s decision. 

Held:
-    Nowhere, except in s 10(2)(b) does the Act [ADJR Act] expressly empower the court to refuse relief, although obviously that power must exist when no basis for relief is established.
-    Once jurisdiction of courts properly enlivened under ADJR Act (standing and decision of admin character under an enactment) there is an obligation to entertain an application
-    But basis for relief under the act must be established
-    Federal court has the same discretion to grant or refuse relief as courts do dealing with an application for traditional common law or equitable remedies
-    Order for review in respect of committal proceedings only made in ‘most exceptional circumstances’.
-    Court will always entertain the application so long as grounds made out but they do have the discretion to grant relief.

ADJR Act s 10

S10(1)(a) rights in the act are in addition to any other rights the person has to seek review
(2)(a) can decline to exercise jurisdiction if the applicant has already sought review by another means or they should seek review by another court/body, pursuant to another act. 

3.    STANDING, INTERVENTION, JOINDER AND FRIENDS OF THE COURT
4.    STANDING
4.1    Prerogative remedies

The prerogative remedies in public law (used in state courts where codified) are:-
-    Prohibition = stop proceedings to prevent illegality. Can’t be used once a decision is reached.
-    certiorari = quashing of a decision (gives superior cts a supervisory role over decisions made by lessor bodies (on the ground of non juris error, of law on the face of the record, juris error or procedural unfairness)
-    mandamus = compelling order against reluctant administrators to carry out functions lawfully. A person whose legal specific right is affected has standing to seek mandamus.
Injunctions and declarations, from private law, may also be sought in judicial review actions
The principles relating to standing to seek judicial review have differed according to the remedy sought

Availability:
Relief in the nature of C and P will lie: “wherever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority”: R v Electricity Commissioners ex p London Electricity Joint Committee (1924), per Atkin LJ
Lord Atkin’s dictum is still the locus classicus for the availability of the 2 remedies, but over the years there have been some judicial refinements:
*    As to the question of when a body has “legal authority”, the courts now appear to be moving to a position where the essential question is not the formal source of power to determine rights but whether the authority being exercised is sufficiently ‘public’ in nature: see R v City Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; ex p Datafin plc (1987). In the past, relief was held to be unavailable where the body in question was a private or domestic body or where the matter complained of was a private law matter of a public body: see R v BBC; ex p Lavelle (1983)
*    The requirement as to “rights” was relaxed quite early to allow the remedies to lie where rights in the strict legal sense (eg. proprietary rights) were not actually being determined by the body in question. However it is still generally considered necessary that the ‘determination’ in question create or affect rights and obligations in some substantive way (see R v Collins; ex p ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd (1976); Greiner v ICA/Moore v ICAC (1992), even if the particular decision is not the final or ultimate one. 
*    In contrast, in Hot Holdings v Creasy, it was held that a preliminary decision or recommendation, if it is one to which regard must be paid by the final decision maker, would have the requisite legal effect upon rights to attract certiorari 
*    The duty to act “judicially” is now interpreted as a duty to act fairly in thew making of administrative decisions affecting rights, interests and legitimate expectations: see Ridge v Baldwin (1964); Kioa v West (1985)

R v Justices of Surrey (1870) LR 5 QB 466  
•    A party aggrieved has standing to seek prohibition or certiorari. The person has to suffer damage to an interest greater than the ordinary members of the public. A person is aggrieved if his or her interests are affected by a decision of a tribunal or inferior court made in excess of jurisdiction.
•    A member of public has standing at the discretion of the court. 

Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473   
*    Sinclair had standing because as an objector to an application for a mining lease, over 1100 acres of Fraser Island, he had the right to have the hearing of the application conducted according to the law. Objection that sandmining against the public interest because of irreversible damage to the environment.
*    Courts held he has a legal right because has a statutory right to be an objector.  has standing to object in the public interest. 
*    Courts often use a ‘sufficient interest’ test or test in ACF instead of the traditional test set out above. Can approach this kind of question using the ACF test.
*    Note► In more recent years, the test of “special interest” (see ACF Inc v Cth (1980)), applicable to actions for equitable relief, has (in the absence of a right of statutory standing) sometimes been applied: see, for example, Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Walker (1985); State Planning Commission; ex p Helena Valley/Boya Assoc Inc (1990)
*    In the absence of a statutory right of standing, a person has a special interest in the subject matter of the proceedings for the purposes of relief in the nature of certiorari and prohibition if the person’s interests may be prejudicially affected in some way and the person is someone other than a “mere busybody”: see R v Liverpool Corporation (1972); R v Corporation of the City of Burnside (1987)
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/115/2/Part-E---Access-to-Court-amp-Judicial-Remedies/Page2.html
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/115/2/Part-E---Access-to-Court-amp-Judicial-Remedies/Page2.html

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in mikiverse, Mikiverse Headline News, Mikiverse Health, Mikiverse Law, Mikiverse Politics, Mikiverse Science | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THE JUDGE AND WATCH YOUR COURT CASE VANISH!
    http://freedomfromgovernment.us/?p=725  Taken from FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT webpage. Use the following freedom affidavit to let them know tha...
  • DECLARING YOURSELF AS A SECURE PARTY CREDITOR
    Published February 12, 2012 | By admin In the review of the steps necessary for filing your Redemption, the main and primary focus, for ...
  • JEAN KEATING ORLANDO FLORIDA SEMINAR
    Transcribed by Rockney Martineau 12/25/04 Jean Keating Work Shop   ______________________ INTRODUCTION By:   Michael Young               ...
  • THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME-THE BIRTH SCAM
    PLEASE NOTE: I do not know who authored this, but, think that it was a biological composition with the calling of Bill. I was presented with...
  • BEAT THE LAW "HOW TO GET DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"
    ALL CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE OR FROM COL WILSON IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ALL RIG...
  • THE CESTA QUE TRUST IS AN ACCOUNT YOU INHERITED DUE TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE U.S. IN 1933 AND THE SUBSEQUENT CEASING OF ALL THE CITIZENS GOLD
    The Cesta Que Trust is an account you inherited due to the bankruptcy of the U.S. in 1933 and the subsequent ceasing of all the citizens g...
  • WHEN ENGLAND BECAME A VASSAL STATE OF THE VATICAN.....THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA 1213
    “On October 3rd 1213, King John, as ‘King of England Corporation Sole’ claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and ...
  • NEGOTIORUM GESTIO & NEGOTIORUM GESTOR AS DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW FIRST EDITION
    NEGOTIORUM GESTIO. Lat. In the civil law. Literally, a doing of business or businesses. A species of spontaneous agency, or an interference ...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM TONY Z AND KATE OF GAIA
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM. TONY Z, KATE OF GAIA AND OTHERS TALK TO TAMI PEPPERMAN
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...

Categories

  • 'Australia is 100% Australian Independent Media (6)
  • 'Australia is a Crime Scene' - Robbie Thorpe (107)
  • 100% Australian Independent Media (392)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media (69)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media Australian Constitution (2)
  • A4V (2)
  • Administration and Probate Act 1958 - SECT 9 (1)
  • Australia is a Crime Scene (1)
  • Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (1)
  • Australian Independent Media (1)
  • Bill Turner (1)
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (1)
  • Blacks Law (1)
  • Bono Vacantia (1)
  • Bouvier's (1)
  • Bruce Bell (1)
  • Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (7)
  • Challenger (1)
  • COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION. (1)
  • Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (1)
  • County Court owned by Liberty (1)
  • Daily Mail (1)
  • Dean Clifford (7)
  • Frank O’Collins (6)
  • Free Roger Hayes (2)
  • Freedom from Government (1)
  • Herald Sun (3)
  • high court (1)
  • High Court decisions (2)
  • http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.com.au/ (24)
  • Idle No More (1)
  • Information Privacy Act 2000 (1)
  • Jean Keating (2)
  • Judiciary Act 1903 S.40 (1)
  • King James II of Australia (1)
  • Larry Hannigan (1)
  • Liberty (1)
  • Mark A Robinson (1)
  • Mark McMurtrie (23)
  • Master in Equity (1)
  • Mens Rea (1)
  • Mental Health Act (1)
  • Mika of the family Rasila (4)
  • mikiverse (486)
  • Mikiverse Headline News (464)
  • Mikiverse Health (492)
  • Mikiverse Law (490)
  • Mikiverse Politics (494)
  • Mikiverse Science (488)
  • mikiverse.com (23)
  • MikiverseLaw (6)
  • Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION—AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES) REGULATIONS 2006 (1)
  • NSW Law Reform Commission (1)
  • OPPT (8)
  • Original Soveregn Tribal Federation (5)
  • Originie Australian (2)
  • OSTF (9)
  • Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 (1)
  • Police Brutality (1)
  • PUBLIC NOTICE (1)
  • Real Justice (1)
  • RealJustice (1)
  • Robert Arthur Menard (4)
  • Robert Menard (4)
  • Rod Class (3)
  • Roger Hayes (1)
  • RT (1)
  • Rumble-v-Liverpool Plains Shire Council No. 2011/58125 (1)
  • S 16 Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • S.76 Sentencing Act 1991 (1)
  • Santos Bonacci (1)
  • Stefan Molyneux (1)
  • Tami Pepperman (3)
  • The Judiciary Act 1903 (1)
  • The Mikiverse (3)
  • UCC Financing Statement (1)
  • Vimeo (1)
  • Wayne Glew (1)
  • Winston Shrout (1)
  • You Tube (24)
  • Your CAR is NOT a MOTOR VEHICLE (3)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (304)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (30)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (66)
    • ▼  January (32)
      • INK DRIES ON LAW TO OUTLAW BIKIES IN TATTOO PARLOURS
      • TAMI PEPPERMAN WITH SHIRLEY MOORE
      • QUEENSLAND POLICE IGNORE PUBLIC SAFETY TO CONCENTR...
      • FORMER HIGH COURT JUDGE IAN CALLINAN URGES COMMUNI...
      • DECODING THE H.R. 3474 HUMAN GENOME CYNTHIA M. BRE...
      • CHAPTER 1 CANONS OF LEGAL ETHICS
      • PROOF THAT A CANADIAN LAWYERS DUTY IS TO THE STATE...
      • THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RUNS HIT PIECE...
      • OATH
      • INDICTING THE IRS - TAMI PEPPERMAN
      • PART E - ACCESS TO COURT & JUDICIAL REMEDIES - DIS...
      • PART E - ACCESS TO COURT & JUDICIAL REMEDIES - TYP...
      • PART E - ACCESS TO COURT & JUDICIAL REMEDIES - MAN...
      • PART E - ACCESS TO COURT & JUDICIAL REMEDIES - ONU...
      • ORDINANCE OF WILLIAM I SEPARATING THE SPIRITUAL AN...
      • MEET YOUR STRAWMAN
      • CAMERON'S EU REFERENDUM PLEDGE LEAVES LABOUR IN TU...
      • SANTOS BONACCI, LISA HARRISON, CHRIS HALES & BOB W...
      • BEST MARIJUANA ARGUMENT EVER: GIVEN BY SUPERIOR CO...
      • TSA ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: OPT-OUTTERS TO BE CO...
      • JURISDICTIONAL TALKS AT 186 CUSTOMS HOUSE
      • THURSDAY NIGHTS WITH MARILYN
      • DEAN CLIFFORD - GLOBAL FACT RADIO - 07-01-2013 - D...
      • CALIFORNIA MAN SAYS HE CAN DRIVE IN CARPOOL LANE W...
      • CANADA GRINDS TO A HALT AS ITS NATIVE PEOPLE HIT OUT
      • IRELAND COPYRIGHT BATTLE: NEWSPAPERS DEMAND FOUR H...
      • EJP ISSUES A DESERVED RETRACTION TO JESUIT TEMPORA...
      • A COLLECTION OF LEGAL WORDS WITH THEIR INFERENCES ...
      • ORIGINAL SOVEREIGN TRIBAL FEDERATION MELBOURNE TRE...
      • ADMIRALTY LAW, CONTRACTS LAW, WHAT ARE THE RULES
      • ROBERT ARTHUR: MENARD LETTER TO CANADIAN FIRST NAT...
      • AUSTRALIA: MALAYSIA � AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEME...
  • ►  2012 (196)
    • ►  December (48)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (1)
Powered by Blogger.