Prerogative Writs And Equitable Remedies In Administrative Law Cases

LAW 2504 Administrative Law

Scenario 1: A Co’s Application for Export Grant is Refused

1. The provisions relating to administrative decision making of Government and different Ministry of the Government in Australia must be in accordance with the Australian Administrative Law Policy guidelines. In case the Government breaches any provisions of administrative law in the country then the concerned party can make appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

In this case the refusal of the Mister to not granting funds for export to A Co is unlawful. This gives A Co the right to make an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as per s25 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AATA) to review the decision to refuse grant to A Co. Since the grant was specifically applied for export hence, tactically it would be advantageous for A Co to make an appeal to Export Grants Tribunal instead of bringing a common law challenge. A Co will have the prerogative writ of Mandamus in which the superior court asks the party to commit any breach to fulfil its duty.   

2. In this case B Company has an option make application for review of decision of the Minister as per s25 of AATA to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the Minster to revoke the grant due to B Company hence it has the option to apply for review the decision of the Tribunal as per s5 of Administrative Decisions Act 1977. B Company will have the prerogative writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Tribunal.   

3. The companies must abide by the terms and conditions of a grant however, in case any condition has been imposed which is unlawful is not required to be followed. In this case C Company should apply to the Attorney General as per s30A of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Attorney General in such should intervene to get rid of any unlawful conditions attached by the Ministry for the grant. It is important to note that it has been assumed that one of the terms and conditions imposed by the Minister is unlawful and illegal. In such case the Attorney General has the right to intervene on the application of the party affected by such unlawful terms and conditions. C Company will also Prohibition prerogative writ to restrain the Ministry from exceeding its powers.     

4. In case the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is not correct and based on materials which are factually incorrect then effected parties by such decision of the Tribunal have the right to appeal for correction of errors in such decision by following thee due procedure provided in s43AA of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Correction of errors to reverse decisions of the Tribunal by following the standard procedure provided in the act must be followed. Since in this case D Company believes that the interpretation by the Tribunal of the word manufacture is simply wrong hence, is should follow the standard procedure of s43AA of the act to correct the errors in the decision of the Tribunal.

Scenario 2: B Company’s Grant is Revoked and Tribunal Upholds Decision

The Tribunal’s view that grant is to be provided only to an organization involved in products which are completely and fully of Australian origin is factually incorrect hence, the errors in the decision of the Tribunal must be reviewed and corrected as per s43AA of the act. Certiorari prerogative writ is available to D company.       

5. A company which has been wrongly debarred for availing the financial benefits of grant by Minister as well as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the option to appeal to appropriate authorities under different sections of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. However, in case an organization has suffered huge losses due to the decision of the Minister or the Tribunal which has resulted in dissolving the company in such case, there is no relevance of appealing to appropriate authorities as per the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as there would be no use of such decision to the company. In such cases the shareholders, investors, creditors and other stakeholders of the company have the right to apply under the Common law in the country to make good the losses caused to these stakeholders due to such wrong and unlawful decision of the Minister and the Tribunal. Equitable remedy of Declaration is available to the stakeholders of the company to establish the pre-existing rights of the company by the court.  

As per the facts in this scenario, it is clear that decision of the Minister to revoke the financial grant to E Company has resulted in dissolution of the company. The heavy losses suffered by the stakeholders of the company can be recovered by the stakeholders under the provisions of the Common Law in the country.

6. In this case there is no revocation of grant to F Company rather as per the facts of the case the operations of the bank will be investigated with the objective to identify any wrong doings on the part of the bank in paying the financial grant to the company. Thus, there is no remedy is available to F Company at this stage.  Based on the findings from investigation appropriate decisions shall be taken on the bank. In case the financial grant of F Company is revoked without any fault of the company then F Company will have the option to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as per the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. 

Hence, no remedies are available to F Company at this point of time when the investigations have started against the bank for the financial grant to F Company.

7. As per the Administrative Polices in Australia, the Government has the right to revoke grants to the companies in exceptional circumstances. In such cases the affected parties will not have any right to challenge the decisions of the Minister taken in favour of the Government. However, in this case the decision of Minister under s1 to not make any further payments for grant will give the right to the Australian Export Association Inc to institute law proceedings. The Australian Exporting Association Inc will have equitable right of Injunction to refrain the Government from taking such step.    

References: 

Elliott, Mark, and Jason Varuhas. Administrative law: text and materials. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Parpworth, Neil. Constitutional and administrative law. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Pert, Alison, Stephanie Abi-Hanna, and Cassandra Smith. “Cases before international courts and tribunals concerning questions of public international law involving Australia 2015.” Australian Year Book of International Law 34 (2016).

Tribunal, Administrative Appeals, and SA FORGIE. “Administrative Appeals Tribunal.” (2015).