Administrative redress in and out of the courts : essays in honour of Robin Creyke and John McMillan / edited by Greg Weeks and Matthew Groves.

Alexandria, N.S.W. : The Federation Press, 2019

1st edition

88987

Administrative remedies -- Australia.

Administrative law -- Australia.

Festschriften -- Australia.

Essays.

1. The iceberg of Australian administrative law: justice before and beyond judicial review

2. Three is plenty

3. Attacks on integrity offices: a separation of powers riddle

4. The courts and the executive: a judicial view

5. Review of visa cancellation or refusal decisions on character grounds: a comparative analysis

6. Administrative law's impact on the bureaucracy

7. More reasons for giving reasons

8. Failure to disclose: what are the consequences when open government founders?

9. Ombudsman litigation: the relationship between the Australian ombudsman and the courts

10. Ombudsmen and crime busters: ships passing in the night

11. State tribunals and the federal judicial system

12. Tribunals: evidence, satisfaction and proof

13. Does one rotten apple spoil the whole barrel? Bias in multimember decision-making

14. The uncertainty of certainty in legislation.

This collection of papers by some of Australia's leading judges, scholars and practitioners focuses on complex public law issues. The book examines executive power, judicial and tribunal review and integrity bodies like Ombudsmen. The opening papers consider separation of powers issues. Justice Stephen Gageler asks if three arms of government remains a suitable model. Do we need a fourth? Greg Weeks' paper explains how bodies that would be in that fourth arm are vulnerable. Justice John Basten examines key questions between the executive and judiciary, while Justice John Griffiths considers those issues in visa cancellation decisions. Other papers examine different accountability mechanisms - tribunals, Ombudsmen and information. Justice Janine Pritchard explains how litigation processes can obtain otherwise obscure material. Judith Bannister analyses what happens when governments fail to disclose information. Mark Aronson and Anita Stuhmcke each consider what happens when Ombudsmen get drawn into litigation and messy cases. Other papers examine the work of tribunals. Graeme Hill examines the constitutional place of tribunals, especially in light of Burns v Corbett (2018). Linda Pearson explains when and how notions of evidence, proof and satisfaction operate in tribunals. Matthew Groves asks what happens when one of several members of tribunals and other bodies are biased - does the bias of one infect the others? This book follows The Federation Press' edited works on public law - Key Issues in Public Law (2018) and Key Issues in Judicial Review (2014) by considering issues not examined in detail in existing works. The book is designed to fill a gap in court and chambers libraries, but also the collection of scholars and students of public law. - Publisher's website.

9781760022020

xxi, 282 pages ; 25 cm