[1] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[2] See particularly Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at 410
[3] Section 476(2). This section was challenged and upheld in Abebe v The Commonwealth; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 162 ALR 1
[4] See in particular Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 162 ALR 577, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Betkhoshabeh, [1999] FCA 980; Cong Tam Dang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 73
[5] [1948] 1 KB 223
[6] Ibid at 229
[7] Ibid at 230
[8] The example given by Lord Greene MR of such a manifestly absurd situation is the much quoted scenario of a teacher being dismissed because she has red hair. Ibid at 229
[9] Sections 5(2)(g) and 6(2)(g)
[10] (1989) 169 CLR 379
[11] Article 1A(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951
[12] (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 434 per McHugh J
[13] (1985) 6 FCR 155
[14] (1989) 91 ALR 39
[15] (1986) 162 CLR 24
[16] Ibid at 41
[17] (1999) 162 ALR 577
[18] Ibid at 587
[19] Ibid at 586 - 589
[20] [1999] FCA 980
[21] Under sections 200 - 201 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). See n 3
[22] As required by Article 33(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951
[23] [1999] FCA 980 at para 12
[24] [2000] FCA 73
[25] One of the issues that arose in this case was whether findings of fact, as opposed to exercises of discretion, can be subject to review for unreasonableness. However the issue was not resolved as the Court concluded that in any event the Tribunal had not acted unreasonably.
[26] See for example Luu v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39; Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379; and Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054
[27] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 231
[28] Baldwin, R. & McCrudden, C. Regulation and Public Law (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1988) pp. 60 ff
[29] Peiris, G. "Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas" (1987) CLJ 53
[30] Craig, P. Administrative Law 2nd ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1989) 292
[31] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 162 ALR 577 at 586 - 589
[32] Aronson, M. & Dyer, B. Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Law Book Company, Sydney, 1996) 374
[33] Jowell, J & Lester, A "Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law" (1987) PL 368 at 372
[34] Ibid at 375. See also Jowell, J. & Lester, A. "Proportionality: Neither Novel Nor Dangerous" in Jowell, J & Oliver, D New Directions in Judicial Review (Stevens, London, 1988)
[35] Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at 410
[36] Jowell & Lester op cit n. 35 at 68
[37] For Australian support for the idea of a separate proportionality ground of review see Kneebone, S. "Proportionality: protection of common law rights or chipping away at the Diceyan edifice" in Administrative Law: Setting the Pace or Being Left Behind? (Australian Institute of Administrative Law, Sydney, 1997) 168
[38] In relation to constitutional law see for example Minister for Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd. (1993) 43 FCR 565
[39] (1990) 170 CLR 321
[40] See McEvoy, T. "New Flesh on Old Bones: Recent Developments in Jurisprudence Relating to Wednesbury Unreasonableness" (1995) AJAL 36
[41] Craig op cit n.31 at 300