Jurisdictional facts – what are they and why do we care?

Jurisdictional fact review is taught quickly at law school and soon forgotten altogether as students focus on more common grounds for judicial review. If you find yourself working in administrative law as a graduate, you may need to brush up on your knowledge. Read this blog post then go forth and impress your team with your understanding of a niche but important area of law.

Why do we care about jurisdictional facts?

As a rule of thumb, a factual error is not a ground for review of a decision. An exception to this rule exists for jurisdictional facts. Where an error has been made about a jurisdictional fact, this is a ground for review of a decision at common law. Jurisdictional fact review is unique in that the reviewing court can receive fresh evidence. For other grounds of review, the reviewing court is stuck with findings of facts made by the decision maker, as questions of fact are seen as belonging to the merits, and the task of a court is to inquire into the legality of the decision (this is known as the merits/legality distinction). In jurisdictional fact review, the evidence before and reasoning of the administrator in fact finding can be reviewed by the court and the existence of facts can be determined afresh. Jurisdictional fact review is an important ground of review to remember because of this opportunity it gives the review court to go beyond the merits/legality distinction.

How to identify a jurisdictional fact

Broadly speaking, a jurisdictional fact is a factual circumstance that must exist prior to a decision being made. A jurisdictional fact might be a certain event or requirement that must occur before a decision is made.  In Timbarra (see key cases below for summary) Spigelman CJ stated there are two factors to consider when determining whether a fact is a jurisdictional fact:

1.       Objectivity: Did parliament intend that the fact must actually exist or be objectively determined as opposed to the decision maker just been satisfied in something? If the act refers in objective terms to the belief, satisfaction would indicate subjectivity rather than objectivity. Note that when Spigelman CJ refers to parliament’s intention he is referring to the intention as evident from the words parliament chose to use in the text of the legislation. While the Explanatory Memorandum and other aids can be taken into account, normal principles of statutory interpretation apply and the starting point is always with the text of the statute.

2.       Essentiality: Did parliament intend that the absence or presence of the fact will invalidate the action. One important factor which is often determinative is whether the fact is preliminary to the exercise of power or arise in the course of exercising the power, if the fact is preliminary to the exercise of the power is not likely to be essential.

A jurisdictional fact will form the basis for judicial review of the decision if it does not exist or has been made in error.

Hypothetical examples:

1.       If legislation states a tribunal can only exercise its powers when sitting on a Wednesday, the fact that it is a Wednesday may be a jurisdictional fact;

2.       If legislation states a person must be convicted of a crime before a decision to revoke a visa can be exercised, the fact a person has been convicted of a crime may be a jurisdictional fact.

Do not confuse a jurisdictional fact with:

1.       A jurisdictional requirement

A jurisdictional requirement is a precondition that must be met before a valid decision can be made. Where a jurisdictional requirement is not met it may cause a jurisdictional error which is a ground for review. If you want to revise jurisdictional requirements the High Court’s discussion of jurisdictional error in Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (Craig) is a must read.

2.       A jurisdictional opinion

Do not confuse a jurisdictional fact with a jurisdictional opinion (see Spigelman CJ’s objectivity/subjectivity distinction above). As Aronson, Dyer and Groves put it in Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4^th ed) a jurisdictional fact “is purely factual”. Note though there are differing opinions on how “purely factual” an opinion must be (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 per Gummow J). If you do not understand the difference between a jurisdictional fact and a jurisdictional opinion, you may want to go right back to basics to review the difference between a fact and an opinion and then go from there. Where you have a jurisdictional opinion, not a jurisdictional fact, the normal principles of reviewing a subjective power will apply and the court cannot accept evidence and decide whether the relevant subjective criterion was met.

Key cases

Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 (Enfield)

Facts:

The case of Enfield concerned the expansion of waste treatment plant. The developers had applied to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) for approval of their expansion plan, which the Local Council strongly opposed. Where a development proposal could be classified as “special industry”, the development application required the consent of both local Minister and Council. The Local Council argued that the extension of the waste treatment plant was “special industry” as it would create smells and allow smells to escape to nearby land. The DAC considered the evidence about smells, formed the view the development was not a “special industry” and approved the application.

Legal issue:

Whether the “special industry” requirement was a jurisdictional fact or an opinion.

High Court:

Found that the characterisation of a proposed development as a “special industry” is a jurisdictional fact, as the legislative regime did not frame the requirement in terms of an opinion and the question of whether a development was a “special industry” played a pivotal role in the development approval scheme, as it was a trigger for public participation and other requirements. The “special industry” requirement was framed objectively as something to be objectively determined.

Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 5 (Timbarra)

Facts: Ross Mining submitted an application to extend one of its goldmines. The legislation required a Species Impact Assessment (SIA) to be submitted with the application where the development was “likely to significantly affect threatened species”. Ross Mining did not submit a SIA, as it argued the development was not likely to significantly affect threatened species. Timbarra Protection Coalition, a lobby group, argued the mining development was likely to significantly affect a number of threatened species including frogs, bats and owls, therefore no “application” had been made and the council could not approve the application as a jurisdictional fact did not exist.

Legal issue: Whether the requirement to submit an SIA where the development was “likely to significantly affect endangered species” was a jurisdictional fact and whether fresh evidence as to the fact could be considered by the reviewing court.

First instance – NSW Land and Environment Court, Justice Tolbert:

Held there was no jurisdictional fact and no fresh evidence could be heard.

NSW Court of Appeal:

Found there was a jurisdictional fact and fresh evidence could be heard by the reviewing court. The legislation was expressed such that the SIA had a pivotal role in the statutory scheme as it ensured detailed information was available to decision makers. The submission of an SIA was necessary before consent was granted or not. Weighing against these factors was that reasonable minds could differ about whether a development would “significantly affect” endangered species. However, the Court of Appeal found the requirement was sufficiently objective and was therefore a jurisdictional fact. The matter was remitted back to the Land and Environment Court to hear fresh evidence about the significant affect of the development on endangered species.

Good luck identifying jurisdictional facts. Don’t be disheartened if you do not understand jurisdictional fact review or if you get confused between different grounds of review. I certainly did not understand the concept five years ago when I first encountered administrative law as a law student. Keep at it.