Click here to read the review first published in ETHOS - ACT Law Society Issue 228 June 2013. Click here to read the review first published in Bulletin - SA Law Society Journal - April 2013 - Volume 35 Issue 3. Click here to read the review first published in the Victorian Law Institute Journal - April 2013. Read the review first published in Hearsay - electronic journal of the Bar Association of Queensland. Control of Government Action: Text, Cases and Commentary provides comprehensive coverage of the legal controls on government decision-making in each Australian jurisdiction, supported by legislation, case extracts and commentary. Every chapter of this highly respected work has been revised for this edition to include important administrative law developments. These cases include: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie, Habib v Commonwealth, Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board; Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth, Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice, Tucker v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship. Features

Statutory interpretation is both a distinct body of law governing the determination of the meaning of legislation and a task that requires a set of skills. It is thus an essential area of legal practice, education and research. Modern Statutory Interpretation: Framework, Principles and Practice is an original, clear, coherent and research-based account of contemporary Australian statutory interpretation. Written by experts in the field, the book provides a comprehensive coverage of statutory interpretation law as well as examining related areas such as legislative drafting, the parliamentary process, the modern history of interpretation, sources of doubt, and interpretation techniques. The content is structured in eight parts. Parts I-III introduce foundational matters, Parts IV-VII deal with the general principles of interpretation, and Part VIII examines special interpretative issues. Modern Statutory Interpretation is an essential resource for legal professionals, legal researchers, and students undertaking advanced courses in statutory interpretation in Australia.

’Inquisitorial processes’ refers to the inquiry powers of administrative governance and this book examines the use of these powers in administrative law across seven jurisdictions. The book brings together recent developments in mixed inquisitorial-adversarial administrative decision-making on a hitherto neglected area of comparative administrative process and institutional design. Reaching important conclusions about their own jurisdictions and raising questions which may be explored in others, the book's chapters are comparative. They explore the terminology and scope of the concept of inquisitorial process, justifications for the use of inquiry powers, the effectiveness of inquisitorial processes and the implications of the adoption of such powers. The book will set in motion continued dialogue about the inherent challenges of balancing policy goals, fairness, resources and institutional design within administrative law decision-making by offering theoretical, practical and empirical analyses. This will be a valuable book to government policy-makers, administrative law decision-makers, lawyers and academics.

"The core animating feature of administrative justice scholarship is the desire to understand how justice is achieved through the delivery of public services and the actions, inactions, and decision-making of administrative bodies. The study of administrative justice also encompasses the redress systems by which people can challenge administrative bodies to seek the correction of injustices. For a long time now, scholars have been interested in administrative justice, but without necessarily framing their work as such. Rather than existing under the rubric of administrative justice, much of the research undertaken has existed within sub-categories of disciplines, such as law, sociology, public policy, politics, and public administration. Consequently, although aspects of the topic have attracted rich contributions across such disciplines, administrative justice has rarely been studied or taught in a manner that integrates these areas of research more systematically. This Handbook signals a major change of approach. Drawing together a group of world-leading scholars of administrative justice from a range of disciplines, The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice shows how administrative justice is a vibrant, complex, and contested field that is best understood as an area of inquiry in its own right, rather than through traditional disciplinary silos"--

This book presents a navigating framework of legal culture and legality to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the English and Australian determination of the grounds of judicial review. This book facilitates tangible process of how and why jurisdictional error, jurisdictional fact, proportionality and substantive legitimate expectations are debatable in English law, while they are either completely rejected or firmly entrenched in Australian law. This book argues that these differences are not just random. Legality is not just a fig-leaf, but is profoundly rooted in legal systems’ legal culture; hence, it dictates the way in which courts empower, justify, constrain or limit the scope of judicial review. This book presents evidence that courts differ in legal systems and apply diverse ways to determine the scope of judicial review based on their deep understanding of legality, which is embedded in the legal culture of their legal system. This book uses comparative methodology and develops this framework between English and Australian law. Although obvious and important, this book presents a kind of examination that has never been undertaken in this depth and detail before.

Among the many constitutional developments of the past century or so, one of the most significant has been the creation and proliferation of institutions that perform functions similar to those performed by courts but which are considered to be, and in some ways are, different and distinct from courts as traditionally conceived. In much of the common law world, such institutions are called 'administrative tribunals'. Their main function is to adjudicate disputes between citizens and the state by reviewing decisions of government agencies - a function also performed by courts in 'judicial review' proceedings and appeals. Although tribunals in aggregate adjudicate many more such disputes than courts, tribunals and their role as dispensers of 'administrative justice' receive relatively little scholarly attention. This wide-ranging book-length treatment of the subject compares tribunals in three major jurisdictions: Australia the UK and the US. It analyses and offers an account of the concept of 'administrative adjudication', and traces its historical development from the earliest periods of the common law to the twenty-first century. There are chapters dealing with the design of tribunals and tribunal systems and with what tribunals do, what they are for and how they interact with their users. The book ends with a discussion of the place of tribunals in the 'administrative justice system' and speculation about possible future developments. Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication fills a significant gap in the literature and will be of great value to public lawyers and others interested in government accountability.

Research on comparative administrative law, in contrast to comparative constitutional law, remains largely underdeveloped. This book plugs that gap. It considers how a wide range of common law systems have received and adapted English common law to the needs of their own socio-political context. Readers will be given complex insights into a wide range of common law systems of administrative law, which they may not otherwise have access to given how difficult it would be to research all of the systems covered in the volume single-handedly. The book covers Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, India, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. Comparative public lawyers will have a much greater range of common law models of administrative law - either to pursue conversations about their own common law system or to sophisticate their comparison of their system (civil law or otherwise) with common law systems.