No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
Section 75(v) of the Australian Constitution gives the High Court original jurisdiction to hear ‘all matters … in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.’ This is said to guarantee the Court's ability to ensure that officers of the Commonwealth act within the law. Yet the s 75(v) jurisdiction is clearly limited. The Court is not authorised to hear all matters in which it is alleged that an officer of the Commonwealth has acted unlawfully; it is only given jurisdiction to hear matters in which a (somewhat surprising) selection of remedies are sought. This is confusing in itself, and it has caused broader confusion about the purpose and scope of this important constitutional provision. This article examines the historical ambit of the judicial review remedies and evidence from the Constitutional Convention Debates in order to determine why s 75(v) only gives the High Court jurisdiction to hear matters in which mandamus, prohibition and injunction are sought, and the significance of this for judicial review under the Australian Constitution.
I wish to thank Professor Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Dr Colin Campbell, Ms Janina Boughey, Mr Julian Sempill and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable assistance. All errors remain my own.
1 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, 363 (Dixon J); cited or quoted in (for example) A-G (Cth) v T&G Mutual Life Society Ltd (1978) 144 CLR 161, 189 (Aickin J); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168, 178–9 (Mason CJ); Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 138 [155] (Hayne J) (‘Ex parte Aala’); Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2007) 228 CLR 651, 668 [45] (‘Bodruddaza’); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 467, 513–4 (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) (‘Plaintiff S157’); Zines, Leslie, Cowen and Zines's Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 3rd ed, 2002), 35Google Scholar; SirMason, Anthony, ‘The Analytical Foundations, Scope and Comparative Analysis of the Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ in Lindell, Geoffrey (ed), The Mason Papers (Federation Press, 2007) 180, 181Google Scholar; Stellios, James, ‘Exploring the Purpose of Section 75(v) of the Constitution’ (2011) 34 University of New South Wales Law Journal 70, 71Google Scholar; Noonan, Charles, ‘Section 75(v), No-invalidity Clauses and the Rule of Law’ (2013) 36 University of New South Wales Law Journal 437, 437.Google Scholar
2 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 513–14 (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); cited with approval in Bodruddaza (2007) 228 CLR 651, 669 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
3 Aronson, Mark and Groves, Matthew, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Lawbook Co, 2013) 50.Google Scholar
4 Ibid.
5 Leeming, Mark, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 2012) 249–50.Google Scholar
6 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 514 [104] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
7 Zines, above n 1, 51. See also Noonan, above n 1, 442.
8 Aitken, L J W, ‘The High Court's Power to Grant Certiorari — the Unresolved Question’ (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 370, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Costello, Kevin, ‘The Writ of Certiorari and Review of Summary Criminal Convictions, 1660–1848’ (2012) 128 Law Quarterly Review 443, 443.Google Scholar
10 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 521 [121]. See somewhat similarly Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165, 1176 (McHugh and Gummow JJ); Gummow, William, ‘The Scope of Section 75(v) of the Constitution: Why Injunction But No Certiorari?’ (Paper Presented at the Public Law Weekend, Australian National University Canberra, 15 November 2013).Google Scholar
11 Quick, John and Garran, Robert, Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Angus and Robertson, 1901) 783.Google Scholar
12 See, eg, Maitland, F W, Equity: A Course of Lectures (Cambridge University Press, 1936) 19.Google Scholar Aronson and Groves make the lesser claim that, while prohibition and mandamus are always associated with judicial review, injunction ‘can be’: above n 3, 50.
13 Quick and Garran, above n 11, 783.
14 Leeming, above n 5, 249–50. I say ‘previously known as’ to indicate both that, when issued by the High Court, mandamus and prohibition are now known as ‘constitutional writs’, and because they are no longer ‘writs’ in the historical sense of that term. See Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 93 [21] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Woolf, Lord Harry et al, De Smith's Judicial Review (Sweet & Maxwell, 7th ed, 2013), 857–8Google Scholar; De Smith, S A, ‘The Prerogative Writs’ (1951) 11 Cambridge Law Journal 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 393 [100]; Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510, 552 [105] (Gaudron J); Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 122-4 [211]–[213] (Kirby J); Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 508 [82] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146, 162 [47] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Aronson, Mark, ‘Commentary on ‘The Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial Review and the Rule of Law’’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 35, 37Google Scholar; Leeming, above n 5, 250; Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 39.
16 See sources cited in above n 1.
17 Leeming, above n 5, 232, 248. See also, eg, Quick and Garran, above n 11, 778; French, Robert, ‘Constitutional Review of Executive Decisions — Australia's US Legacy’ (2010) 35 University of Western Australia Law Review 35, 41Google Scholar; French, Robert, ‘The Equitable Geist in the Machinery of Administrative Justice’ (2003) 39 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 1, 7.Google Scholar
18 See also Stellios, above n 1; Gummow, above n 10.
19 Stellios, above n 1.
20 See further Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ‘Implications in Language, Law and the Constitution’ in Lindell, Geoffrey (ed), Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law (Federation Press, 1994) 150.Google Scholar
21 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 476, 513 [103].
22 See also Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 50.
23 A hopeless or colourable application for one of the three remedies will not enliven the s 75(v) jurisdiction: Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 51–2; Quick and Garran, above n 11, 374.
24 The Court's ability to issue other remedies is discussed below.
25 De Smith, above n 14.
26 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1875–6 (Edmund Barton), quoting Board of Liquidation v McComb 92 US 531, 541 (1875).
27 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1879 (Isaac Isaacs).
28 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 11 March 1898, 2279–80 (Richard O’Connor).
29 Reg v Local Government Board (1882) 10 QBD 309, 321; Shortt, John, Informations (Criminal and Quo Warranto) Mandamus and Prohibition (William Clowes, 1887) 439Google Scholar; Quick and Garran, above n 11, 782–3; De Smith, above n 14, 48–9; Gummow, above n 10, 10; Woolf, Jowell, Le Sueur, above n 14, 862–5.
30 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 11 March 1898, 2278 (Richard O’Connor).
31 See, eg, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1875–81, 1884.
32 See, eg, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1876–7.
33 See, eg, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1876.
34 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1878 (Josiah Symon).
35 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1877 (Edmund Barton).
36 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1883–4 (Edmund Barton) (emphasis added). See also Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 31 January 1898, 319 (Richard O’Connor).
37 Spigelman, James, ‘The Centrality of Jurisdictional Error’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 77.Google Scholar
38 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 521 [121].
39 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 39, 781, 806–7.
40 Selway, Bradley, ‘The Principle Behind Common Law Judicial Review of Administrative Action — the Search Continues’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 217, 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 785–6; Lewis, Clive, Judicial Remedies in Public Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd ed, 2000) 174.Google Scholar
42 Spigelman, above n 37. See also Selway, above n 40, 236.
43 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 39.
44 Leeming, above n 5, 3. See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146, 152 [4] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ).
45 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 39–40.
46 See also A-G (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35–6 (Brennan J); Selway, above n 40, 219; Aronson, Mark, Dyer, Bruce and Groves, Matthew, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Lawbook Co, 2004) 208.Google Scholar
47 McDonald, Leighton, ‘The Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial Review and the Rule of Law’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 14, 18.Google Scholar
48 See, eg, R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australian Section (1953) 89 CLR 636, 647; R v Gray; Ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351, 371–2; Public Service Association (SA) v Federated Clerks’ Union (1991) 173 CLR 132, 141; Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, 176–80; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194, 226–9 [78]–[85]; Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 141 [163] (Hayne J); Kirk v Industrial Relations Court of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531, 573 [71], 574 [73]; Gleeson, Murray ‘Judicial Legitimacy’ (2000) 20 Australian Bar Review 4 , 11Google Scholar; Selway, above n 40, 234.
49 R v Hull University Visitor; Ex parte Page [1993] AC 682.
50 See, eg, Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372, 440 [173] (Kirby J); Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1, 24–5 [76]–[77] (McHugh and Gummow JJ); Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165, 1176 [59] (McHugh and Gummow JJ); Selway, above n 40, 234; Spigelman, above n 37, 83.
51 [1952] 1 KB 338.
52 Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 521 [121].
53 Ibid, quoting R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338, 348. Note there is a case from 1878 which indicates certiorari could lie for patent, non-jurisdictional error, but the significance of this was not apparently noted by the UK courts until 1922. See Gummow, above n 10; Walsall Overseers v London and North Western Railway Co (No 1) (1878) 4 AC 30, 40; R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128, 155–6.
54 Rubinstein traces the use of no-certiorari clauses to the early 18th century: Rubinstein, Amnon, Jurisdiction and Illegality: A Study in Public Law (Clarendon Press, 1965), 71–3.Google Scholar Costello states that they ‘begun to be [used] in the reign of Queen Anne, and became more regular after 1745’: above n 9, 460 (citations omitted).
55 See Rubinstein, above n 54, 71–2; Costello, above n 9, 460–2.
56 Rubinstein, above n 54, 73. Costello reports that this technique of reading down no-certiorari clauses originated in respect of administrative orders, and ‘had been recognised [in that context] since the mid-18th century’: above n 9, 462 n 135. Further, ‘the application of this theory to criminal convictions … came relatively late in the history of the process — probably not until the 1830s’: Costello, above n 9, 462 (citations omitted).
57 Costello traces the model-form conviction to the Spirit Duties Act of 1736. ‘By the mid-18th century, the statutory short-form became routine, a standard clause inserted in virtually all post-1740 statutes instituting summary criminal jurisdiction.’ The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 (UK) then ‘extended the standard form conviction … to all summary offences’. These reforms were then adopted in other, non-criminal contexts: above n 9, 448, 462–5 (emphasis in original). See also Rubinstein, above n 54, 73–4; R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128, 159.
58 Costello, above n 9, 462.
59 Rubinstein, above n 54, 74. See, eg, Re Heapy (1888) 22 LR Ir 500, 512 (Palles CB). This, combined with the notion that certiorari was not necessary (and not available) to quash a decision which was, in law, a nullity, ‘sometimes led to a total denial of certiorari’ in the 1800s: Rubinstein, above n 54, 84; R v Bristol & Exeter Railway Co (1838) 11 Ad & E 202; Re Daws (1838) 8 Ad & E 936; Ex parte Lord Gifford (1845) LTOS 341. See also (much later) Parisienne Basket Shoes v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369, 392 (Dixon J). See generally Wade, William, ‘Unlawful Administrative Action: Void or Voidable? (Part I)’ (1967) 83 Law Quarterly Review 499, 524.Google Scholar
60 Rubinstein, above n 54, 74. See also De Smith, S A, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Stevens & Sons, 1959) 295.Google Scholar However commentators suggest that, during this time, the concept of jurisdictional error was expanded so that in practice, ‘[t]he rate of use of certiorari remained fairly undisturbed’: Costello, above n 9, 464. See also Rubinstein, above n 54, 72–3.
61 De Smith, above n 60, 295.
62 See also Rubinstein, above n 54, 70.
63 See Wood, Horace G and Bridge, Charles F, A Treatise on the Legal Remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto (WC Little, 3rd ed, 1896) 174–6.Google Scholar
64 See further below.
65 Above n 15.
66 See also Gummow, above n 10.
67 Stellios, above n 1.
68 Gleeson, J T and Yezerski, R A, ‘The Separation of Powers and the Unity of the Common Law’ in Gleeson, J T, Watson, J A and Higgins, R C A (eds), Historical Foundations of Australian Law — Volume 1: Institutions, Concepts and Personalities (Federation Press, 2013) 297, 306.Google Scholar
69 Marbury v Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
70 Ibid 175–6.
71 Stellios, above n 1, 70; Buss, William G, ‘Andrew Inglis Clark's Draft Constitution, Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, and the Assist from Article III of the Constitution of the United States’ (2009) 33 Melbourne University Law Review 718, 779–81.Google Scholar
72 Williams, John, The Australian Constitution: A Documentary History (Melbourne University Press, 2005) 846.Google Scholar See also Stellios, above n 1, 70–1.
73 See, eg, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 31 January 1898, 320–1.
74 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1875 (Edmund Barton).
75 Ibid 1885.
76 See also Gleeson and Yezerski, above n 68, 317.
77 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1875 (Edmund Barton).
78 Ibid 1876 (Edmund Barton).
79 Ibid 1876, 1884 (Edmund Barton).
80 Ibid 1881, 1883–5 (Edmund Barton).
81 Ibid 1882–5.
82 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 175–6 (1803).
83 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, Sydney, 4 March 1898, 1881 (Edmund Barton).
84 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, 363 (Dixon J) (‘Bank Nationalisation Case’). Note Stellios has also convincingly demonstrated that other framers had other purposes in mind: above n 1.
85 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1882–3 (Isaac Isaacs).
86 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1879 (Isaac Isaacs), 1880–1881 (Dr Quick). See further below.
87 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1881 (Edmund Barton). See also Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1883-5 (Edmund Barton).
88 S A De Smith, above n 14, 51. See also Selway, Bradley, ‘Of Kings and Officers — the Judicial Development of Public Law’ (2005) 33 Federal Law Review 187, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89 See below n 96.
90 See above n 29.
91 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow & Co (1910) 11 CLR 1, 22.
92 See, eg, Gageler, Stephen, ‘The Underpinnings of Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Common Law or Constitution?’ (2000) 28 Federal Law Review 303, 310CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Quick and Garran above n 11, 779.
93 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1885 (Edmund Barton).
94 See Rubinstein, above n 54, 95.
95 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 175–6 (1803).
96 See, eg, R v Reed (1880) 5 QBD 483; A-G v Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1889) 23 QBD 492; A-G v Shire of Echuca (1878) 4 VLR 4; A-G v Borough of North Sydney (1893) 14 NSWLR (Eq) 154; A-G v Cockermouth Local Board [1871] AC 131; A-G v Great Northern Railway (1860) 62 ER 337. For a case soon after Federation, see A-G v London County Council (1902) AC 165.
97 This statement makes certain assumptions about the availability of injunction, which require further testing. See O’Donnell, Benjamin, ‘Jurisdictional Error, Invalidity and the Role of Injunction in s 75(v) of the Australian Constitution’ (2007) 28 Australian Bar Review 291.Google Scholar It is not necessary to engage with the conceptual difficulties surrounding the use of certiorari to quash decisions vitiated by jurisdictional error. It is useful to consider that at the time the Constitution was drafted, the concept of invalidity did not appear to be so rigidly conceived. Sir William Wade, for example, saw no problem with the fact that certiorari was routinely ‘used to quash acts which are ultra vires and therefore in law nullities’; even decisions which are, in law, void must first be found to be so by a court, and certiorari is used to assist and confirm this: above n 59, 524.
98 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 175 (1803).
99 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1881, 1885 (Edmund Barton).
100 Quick and Garran, above n 11, 779; Ah Yick v Lehmert (1905) 2 CLR 593, 608 (Barton J); R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Tramways (No 1) (1914) 18 CLR 54 (‘The Tramways’ Case (No 1)’), quoted with approval in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168, 179 (Mason CJ).
101 See also Gummow, above n 10.
102 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1885 (Edmund Barton).
103 (1905) 2 CLR 593.
104 (1910) 11 CLR 1 (Isaacs J dissenting).
105 (1914) 18 CLR 54.
106 (1914) 18 CLR 54, 64–5.
107 (1914) 18 CLR 54, 65. See also (1914) 18 CLR 54, 79–81 (Isaacs J), 82–3 (Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ); cf. R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow (1910) 11 CLR 1, 48–9 (Isaacs J).
108 (1910) 11 CLR 1, 47–9. See also Gummow, above n 10.
109 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1882.
110 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1883 (Isaac Isaacs).
111 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1884 (Edmund Barton).
112 See eg, Zines, above n 1, 47; P H Lane, ‘High Court's Jurisdiction to Issue Writs’ (1967-1968) 41 Australian Law Journal 130; Aitken, above n 8. See further below.
113 Zines, above n 1, 47–8; Quick and Garran, above n 11, 779.
114 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 168, 179, 221, 231; Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 92 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ). See further Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 51–2 and cases cited therein; Zines, above n 1, 47–9.
115 Aitken, above n 8, 373; Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 777.
116 R v War Pensions Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228. See further Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 806–7.
117 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 82. See more specifically the abandonment of the notion of ‘judicial power’ as a criterion for the rules of procedural fairness (recently confirmed in S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration (2010) 246 CLR 636) and the expansion of the writ of certiorari to non-judicial decision makers at common law (Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149; Grocon Constructors Pty Ltd v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture (No 2) (2009) 26 VR 172).
118 See further section V(B) below.
119 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1876–1876 (Edmund Barton), quoting Board of Liquidation v McComb 92 US 531, 541 (1875).
120 Quick and Garran, above n 11, 783.
121 Roscoe Pound, ‘Visitatorial Jurisdiction Over Corporations in Equity’ (1935-1936) 49 Harvard Law Review 369; De Smith, above n 60; Rubinstein, above n 54; Leeming (with respect to the US), above n 5, 250–1; A-G (Vic) v Shire of Huntly (1887) VLR 66; A-G v London County Council [1901] 1 Ch 781, 788.
122 A-G v Cockermouth Local Board [1871] AC 131.
123 (1860) 1 Drewry and Smale 154.
124 Leeming, above n 5, 252. See also Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Limited (1998) 194 CLR 247.
125 See also Leeming, above n 5, 5; Gummow, above n 10.
126 De Smith, above n 14, 48. See also Woolf, Jowell, and Le Sueur, above n 14, 863.
127 See eg, Wade, William, ‘Unlawful and Administrative Action: Void or Voidable? Part II’ (1968) 84 Law Quarterly Review 95, 108Google Scholar; Bradley Selway, above n 40, 236.
128 Leeming, above n 5, 250.
129 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1885 (Edmund Barton).
130 Historically, certiorari took other forms and served other purposes. ‘In the earliest times … [c]ertiorari was essentially a royal demand for information’: Woolf, Jowell, and Le Sueur, above n 14, 857. Subsequently, it could be used in the UK to either ‘remove a record from one court into another’ (effectively transferring the matter to a different court), or to remove the record of an impugned decision into a superior court which could then quash it. In Australia, it is only used to do the latter: Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 775–6. See also De Smith, above n 14, 45–6.
131 Rubinstein, above n 54, 68–9, 91–2. Note Rubinstein also describes the issue of mandamus as a kind of ‘[d]irect appellate proceeding’ (102), but suggests this is due to the unprincipled expansion of the writ to cases of ‘constructive’ failure of jurisdiction in the 1800s (102, 207), which transformed the remedy into a method of reviewing a decision which had been made in fact (105). Note also there is only one reference to certiorari in the Convention Debates, which is of no consequence: 3 March 1898, 1876 (Dr Quick).
132 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570, 609; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 90–91 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 135 (Kirby J); Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372, 393–394 (Gleeson CJ), 440 (Kirby J); Plaintiff S157 (2003) 211 CLR 467, 481 [1] (Gleeson CJ), 507 [80] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ); MZXOT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 233 CLR 601, 615; Australian Education Union v General Manager of Fair Work Australia (2012) 286 ALR 624, [43] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). The limitations of this ancillary power (including, for example, whether the applicant must be entitled to one of the listed remedies) remain unclear: Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 52–3.
133 Which states, ‘[t]he High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction in any cause or matter pending before it … shall have power to grant, and shall grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as are just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto are entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them.’
134 Lane, above n 112, 132; citing Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v Gilchrist Watt & Sanderson Ltd (1924) 34 CLR 482, 526; R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 267–70, 272, 290; In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257. See also Katz, Leslie, ‘Aspects of the High Court's Jurisdiction to Grant Prerogative Writs Under Section 75(iii) and Section 75(v) of the Constitution’ (1976) 5(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 188, 191Google Scholar; Aitken, above n 8, 374-6.
135 Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Sydney, 31 January 1898, 320–321; Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1879–81, 1884 (Dr Quick, Isaac Isaacs).
136 See Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 134 (Kirby J), 139 (Hayne J).
137 See, eg, Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 4 March 1898, 1876–1880.
138 Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 785. See further Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 785–6 and cases cited therein.
139 Aitken, above n 8, 374.
140 See Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 51 and cases cited therein.
141 Wade, above n 59, 524.
142 See, eg, Aitken, above n 8, 375–6 and cases cited therein.
143 Re Refugee Tribunal; Ex Parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82, 92 [19].
144 See Aronson and Groves, above n 3, 51 and cases cited therein.
145 See above n 1.
146 Bateman, Will, ‘The Constitution and the Substantive Principles of Judicial Review: The Full Scope of the Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial Review’ (2011) 39 Federal Law Review 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar