Isbester v. Knox City Council, [2015] HCA 20 is an interesting example of the operation of the rule against bias to administrative proceedings. At the centre of the tale is a dog, Izzy, who had attacked and injured a person. Legislation in the Australian province of Victoria gives the Council the power to order that […] Read more

Should courts defer to administrative decision-makers on procedural matters? As things stand (for the most part), judicial intervention is warranted whenever a decision-maker fails to live up to judicially developed conceptions of fairness. But this judicial supremacy sits uneasily with the modern, context-sensitive duty of fairness. Historically, automatic intervention whenever a decision-maker deviated from the […] Read more

Canadian administrative law is different in many ways from that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, but on one question it (for the most part) clings doggedly to an old mantra: procedural questions are for the courts alone to decide, without any deference to decision-makers. This orthodoxy has recently been challenged as a matter of principle. But […] Read more

An English accountant, Mr. Hill, was the subject of disciplinary proceedings. Hill gave lengthy evidence-in-chief and was also cross-examined. On one of the days of the hearing, one of the tribunal members left early, with the agreement of counsel for both sides. A transcript was provided to the member and he was able to ask […] Read more