Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T02:32:09.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inquisitorial Procedure in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal — A Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Gillian Osborne
Gillian Osborne*
Affiliation:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tribunals and specialised courts with inquisitorial powers are now fairly common in Australia and appellate courts have begun to insist that in certain circumstances the powers be used. By “inquisitorial powers” is meant powers which enable the adjudicator to take the initiative in eliciting evidence and formulating legal arguments, and to control the way in which a case is presented. The Australian Committee on Administrative Discretions believed that it would be appropriate for their proposed administrative review tribunal to make use of an “investigative or inquisitorial process in most cases”. There have even been calls for the use of some inquisitorial procedures in ordinary courts of law. A radical change in the ordinary courts seems at present to be impracticable. On the other hand the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is still in a position to set its own pattern of development. It has been given almost carte blanche as to procedure and some wide inquisitorial powers. For the last six years it has been experimenting with the use of these powers, and some of its pre-trial procedures have already aroused interest. The Federal Court in its jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) is given power to exert far greater control over the conduct of proceedings than is normal in an adversary system.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 150 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Australian National University

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.)

References

1 R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13, 32-33; Bilbaov Farquhar (1974) 1 NSWLR 377.

2 Committee on Administrative Discretions, Final Report (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1973) para 172(i).

3 H Whitmore, , “Justice Denied by Outdated Legal System”, Sydney Morning Herald 6 April 1981Google Scholar; R Eggleston, , “What is Wrong with the Adversary System” (1975) 49 AU 428, 436-438Google Scholar.

4 Federal Court of Australia Rules, Order 4A, Rule 8.

5 Supplied under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975-1977 (Cth) s 37.

6 A N Hall, , “Administrative Review Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal–A Fresh Approach to Dispute Resolution?” (1981) 12 FL Rev 72, 89Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Hall); R K Todd, , “Administrative Review Before the Administrative, Appeals Tribunal–A Fresh Approach to Dispute Resolution?” (1981) 12 FL Rev 85, 110Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Todd).

7 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975-1977 (Cth).

8 Ibid s 33(1)(c).

9 Re Woolworths Ltd and Collector of Customs (1978) 1 ALO 116, 122; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77.

10 Re Control Investments Ply Ltd and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1981) 3 ALD 88, 91-92.

11 Ibid 92.

12 Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 31 ALR 666, 680. See also Smithers J in Sullivan v Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALO 383, 386; Fox J in Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 35 ALR 186, 199-200.

13 (1978) 1 ALO 383.

14 (1981) 35 ALR 186.

15 Hall, op cit n 6, 85-87, 90-92.

16 In 1980-1981 52.9% of appeals were finalised by either the decision being altered by the primary decision maker (32.6%) or the applicant withdrawing on his own initiative (20.3% ) : Administrative Review Council, Fifth Annual Report 1980-1981, 77. See Hall, op cit n 6, 86-87 on the role of the preliminary conference in achieving early resolution of disputes.

17 Hall, op cit n 6, 88-90; Todd, op cit n 6, 110.

18 Hall, op cit n 6, 90, speaking of Re Toner Distributors of Australia Pty Ltd and The Collector of Customs (1980) 3 ALO 234.

19 Eg Re Dean and Secretary, Department of Transport unreported decision No 77/12018, 16, 18 (14 April 1978); Re Waddy and Delegate of the Secretary, Department of Transport unreported decision No 78/10003, 16-17 (20 April 1978); Re Bishop and Secretary, Department of Transport unreported decision No 79/12004, 12 (7 June 1979); Re Pacific Film Laboratories Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs 2 ALO 144, 157 (19 January 1979); Re Foulger and Repatriation Commission (1980) 2 ALO 789, 797; Re Wheeler and Director-General Social Security unreported decision No Q80/12, 2, 24 (26February 1981).

20 Sullivan v Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALO 383, 402-403 per Deane J, below p 167.

21 Eg In Re Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248, 257-258; Jones v National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB 55, 63-64; Yuill v Yuill (1945) 1 All ER 183, 189.

22 Law of 16-24 August, 1790 (France) cited in M Letoumeur, J Bauchet, J Merle, Le Conseil d'Etat et les Tribunaux Administratifs (1970) 79 (hereinafter cited as Letourneur).

23 For a brief description of the progress of the Conseil d'Etat towards independence, see L N Brown and J F Garner, French Administrative Law (1973) 19-22 (hereinafter cited as Brown).

24 Letourneur, op cit n 22, 122-123; Brown, op cit n 23, 94-96.

25 Blanco, Tribunal des Conflicts, 8 February 1873, in Brown, op cit n 23, 9.

26 Brown, op cit n 23, 63-67, and see G Vlachos, , “Fondements et Fonction de la Notion de Service Public” (1978) Recueil Dalloz Sirey (hereinafter cited as Dalloz) 582Google Scholar.

27 Letourneur, op cit n 22, 171-172.

28 Ibid 194-195.

29 Ibid 195. See also Odent, Contentieux Administratif (2nd ed 1965-1966) 810 (hereinafter cited as Odent).

30 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 137-138Google Scholar.

31 Heumann, “Dix Ans de Jurisprudence au Conseil d'Etat”, Conseil d'Etat, Etudes et Documents (No 18 1976) 24.

32 1977 (Cth).

33 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 138Google Scholar.

34 Ibid 143-149.

35 Ibid 148-149; GA Hermann, , “The Scope of Judicial Review in French Administrative Law” (1977) 16 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 195, 237-244Google Scholar.

36 Ville Nouvelle Est de Lille, Conseil d'Etat 28 May 1971 cited in Heumann, op cit n 31, 24.

37 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 149-154Google Scholar.

38 Ibid 149; see also Odent, op cit n 29, 1189.

39 Odent, , op cit n 29, 1191Google Scholar; Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 149-154Google Scholar.

40 Eg proceedings to annul a decree, or an acte réglementaire of a Minister, disputes concerning individual status of senior public servants, proceedings to annul an administrative act which extends beyond the jurisdiction of a single tribunal administratif; Brown, op cit n 23, 25-26.

41 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 43-48Google Scholar.

42 The high standards and prestige of this school are discussed in Brown, op cit n 23, 39.

43 Ibid. In addition a few senior posts are reserved for recruits from the tribunaux administratifs.

44 Letourneur, op cit n 22, 185-186.

45 Brown, , op cit n 23, 40Google Scholar.

46 Increased from 9 to 10 by Decret 80-15 of 10 January 1980 Art 1 (France) (1980 Dalloz Leg 88).

47 Decret 80-15 of 10 January 1980, Art 2 (France).

48 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 187-188Google Scholar; Brown, , op cit n 23, 44-46Google Scholar.

49 Odent, , op cit 29, 788-789Google Scholar; cf below p 178.

50 Brown, , op cit n 23, 44-45Google Scholar.

51 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 187-189Google Scholar.

52 Brown, , op cit n 23, 46Google Scholar.

53 Lefas, , “Essai de Comparaison entre le concept de 'natural justice' en droit administratif anglo-saxon et les 'principes generaux du droit' ainsi que les 'regles generales de procedure' correspondents en droit administratif francais” (1978) Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 745, 755-756Google Scholar.

54 R Chapus, , “De 'Office du Juge: Contentieux Administratif et Nouvelle Procedure Civile” Conseil d'Etat, Etudes et Documents (1977-1978) 13, 27-28Google Scholar.

55 Odent, , op cit n 29, 786-787Google Scholar.

56 Conseil d'Etat (28 May 1954), in Brown, , op cit n 23, 136-137Google Scholar.

57 Brown, , op cit n 23, 47Google Scholar.

58 Ibid 167.

59 See cases cited in Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 195Google Scholar; Odent, , op cit n 28, 787Google Scholar.

60 Decret 75-791 of 20 August 1975 Art 10 (France), (1975) Dalloz Leg 327, 328.

61 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 195Google Scholar; J P Negrin, , “Reformes Recentes Relative au Conseil d'Etat statuant au Contentieux” (1977) Dalloz Chronique 79Google Scholar.

62 Negrin, , op cit n 61, 79Google Scholar.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid 78.

65 Odent, , op cit n 29, 788Google Scholar.

66 Brown, , op cit n 23, 61Google Scholar.

67 Odent, , op cit n 29, 796Google Scholar. It includes the ground of /'incompetence and has included a question of res judicata and of an amnesty. For further examples see Odent, 797-802.

68 Odent, , op cit n 29, 788-789Google Scholar. For examples of “interpretations” see Chapus, , op cit n 54, 46-47Google Scholar.

69 Viargues, , “Plaidoyer pour les Tribunaux Administratifs”, Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et à l'Etranger [5-1979] 1251, 1256Google Scholar (my translation).

70 The institution was created in 1831, the year in which the Commission du Contentieux began to conduct its business in public: Brown, op cit n 23, 21-22.

71 Vedel, , Droit Administratif (5th ed 1973) 528Google Scholar.

72 Odent, , op cit n 29, 805Google Scholar; Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 192Google Scholar.

73 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 192Google Scholar.

74 The vice-president of the Conseil d'Etat, the president of the section du contentieux or the president of the sous-section d'instruction may also make this decision: Brown, op cit n 23, 50-51.

75 Odent, , op cit n 29, 806Google Scholar.

76 Brown, , op cit n 23, 50-54Google Scholar.

77 Odent, , op cit n 22, 812Google Scholar.

78 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 191-195Google Scholar.

79 Ibid 192.

80 See Yuill v Yuill (1945) 1 All ER 183, 189; Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55, 63-64.

81 Letoumeur, , op cit n 22, 44Google Scholar; Decret 63-767 of 30 July 1963, Art 15 (France) retained in Decret 75-791 of 26 August, 1975, Art 2, (1975) Dalloz Leg 327, 328.

82 A comment made in relation to the tribunaux administratifs, below p 165.

83 Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 192-193Google Scholar.

84 G Vedel, , Cours a la Faculte de Droit de Paris (1951)Google Scholar quoted in Letourneur, , op cit n 22, 193Google Scholar.

85 Ibid 807-808.

86 Decret 73-682 and 73-683 of 13 July 1973 (France), (1973) Dalloz Leg 307 and 308.

87 Decret 75-164 of 12 March 1975 (France), (1975) Dalloz Leg 99.

88 Loi 80-511 of 7 July 1980 (France), (1980) Dalloz Leg 265.

89 Brown, , op cit n 23, 46Google Scholar.

90 Decret 73-683 of 13 July 1973 (France), (1973) Dalloz Leg 308, Ch IV, Art Rll7-Rl26.

91 Decret 73-683 of 13 July 1973 (France), (1973) Dalloz Leg 308, Art R137-R138.

92 Ibid Art R137 and Rl23.

93 Ibid Art R139-14S.

94 Ibid Art R139-140.

95 Viargues, , op cit n 69, 1251Google Scholar.

96 Ibid 1252-1253.

97 Ibid 1255.

98 Decret 80-438 of 17 June 1980 (France), (1980) Dalloz Leg 231.

99 Viargues, , op cit n 69, 1254-1255Google Scholar. In certain cases litigants can choose to have the case judged by a single juge-delegue, but seldom take this option.

1 Cours de Contentieux Administratif de ['Institute d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (ed 1977-1978), Les Cours de Droit, 910 quoted in Viargues, op cit n 69, 1255: ''The solution of the single judge is abhorrent in administrative litigation … a serious deliberation resulting in a judgment offering guarantees of independence and impartiality to the parties, necessarily implies that several people be consulted, discuss their respective points of view and reach a majority decision.”

2 In eg Re Waterford and Director-General of Social Services (1980) 3 ALD 63, 68.

3 Re SB and Director-General of Social Services (1981) 3 ALN 153. The Tribunal has frequently used teleconference facilities for hearings for directions but had not previously used them for taking evidence, see generally Hall, op cit n 6,91-92.

4 Lefas, , op cit n 53, 758-759Google Scholar.

5 Sullivan v Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD 383.

6 Ibid 402-403.

7 Ibid 403.

8 Ibid 392.

9 Ibid 386.

10 See Todd, (1981) 12 FL Rev 95, 110 for the approach of a Tribunal member who has presided at a large number of hearings whereapplicants appeared in person.

11 Hall, (1981) 12 FL Rev 71, 89, referring to Sullivan v Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD 383, 402-403.

12 Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (1981) 35 ALR 186, 199 cited in Hall, op cit 88-89.

13 Sullivan v Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALD 383, 410.

14 Hall, , op cit n 11, 88-92Google Scholar.

15 Re Buhagiar and Director-General of Social Services, No 81/1 unreported hearing attended 24 April 1981.

16 16S Skehill, (1981) 12 FL Rev 114,115.

17 Re Lanham and Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALN 629.

18 Eg Re Waddy and Delegate of the Secretary, Department of Transport (1978) 1 ALN 199.

19 Re SB and Director-General of Social Services (1981) 3 ALN 153.

20 See generally Todd, op cit n 10, 109-110.

21 J A Smillie, ''The Problem of 'Official Notice': Reliance by Administrative Tribunals on the Personal Knowledge of their Members” [1975] Public Law 64.

22 H Whitmore, M Aronson, , Review of Administrative Action (1978) 114-120Google Scholar.

23 Smillie, , op cit 65-66Google Scholar.

24 See case cited in Smillie, op cit 69.

25 Ibid 70, 84-86.

26 (1981) 3 ALD 88.

27 See Yuill v Yuill (1945) 1 All ER 183, 189; Jones v National Coal Board [1957]; 2 QB 55, 63-64.

28 PD Connolly, , “The Adversary System–Is It Any Longer Appropriate?” (1975) 49 ALJ 439, 441Google Scholar.

29 Whitmore, Aronson, , op cit 98Google Scholar.

30 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No 1) 1982 (Cth), s 26(b).

31 See Hall, , op cit n 11, 92Google Scholar.

32 Re Control Investments Pty Ltd and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1981) 3 ALO 88.

33 Glos, , Comparative Law (1979) 331-342Google Scholar.

34 Re Ladybird Childrens Wear Pty Ltd and Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (1976) 1 ALD 1, 5.

35 J A Gobbo, D Byrne, JD Reydon, (eds) Cross on Evidence, 2nd Australian ed 1979 78-79Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Cross).

36 As in Social Services Act 1947 (Cth), s 107(1).

37 As in Repatriation Act (1920) (Cth), s 47(2).

38 See Cross, op cit 79-80.

39 (1981) 3 ALD 88, 95.

40 Ibid 96.

41 See Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth), s 25(1) and R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13, 32-33.

42 Re Greenham and Minister for Capital Territory (1979) 2 ALO 137, 141.

43 Re Connors and Minister for Capital Territory (1979) 2 ALD 819, 824.

44 Re Firth and Minister for Capital Territory (1979) 2 ALD 183, 198.

45 Holmgren, “The New Swedish Legislation on Administrative Jurisdiction” (1974) 18 Scandinavian Studies in Law 71, 84-85.

46 Above p 159.

47 Glos, , Comparative Law (1979) 339-340Google Scholar.

48 Administrative Court Procedure Act 1972 (Sweden) s 8, cited in H Ragnemalm, “Administrative Appeal and Extraordinary Remedies in Sweden” (1976) 20 Scandinavian Studies in Law 205, 216.

49 Ragnemalm, , op cit 216Google Scholar.

50 Ibid 217.

51 Unreported decision No Q80/2, commented on in (1980) 54 AU 752.

52 Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 637-638.

53 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee Report (1971) para 292; and see H Whitmore, , (1981) 12 FL Rev 117, 118Google Scholar.

54 See S Skehill, , (1981) 12 FL Rev 114, 116Google Scholar.

55 P J Lanigan, , (1981) 12 FL Rev 19, 23Google Scholar.