WWW.THESIS.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Online materials, documents
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 7 |

«2001 Unreasonableness and Error of Law 315 UNREASONABLENESS AND ERROR OF LAW MARK ARONSON* I INTRODUCTION: MIXING FACT AND LAW Judges have long ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

2001 Unreasonableness and Error of Law 315

UNREASONABLENESS AND ERROR OF LAW

MARK ARONSON*

I INTRODUCTION: MIXING FACT AND LAW

Judges have long denied the existence of a fixed distinction between errors of

law and errors of fact, and legal literature abounds with derision and scorn for

those who attempt it.* The topic nevertheless holds an endless fascination for practising and academic lawyers alike, and even the Commonwealth Parliament has attempted a definition in the context of the Federal Court’s former migration jurisdiction.2 Almost everyone concedes that there is a degree of manipulability in the distinctions between legal and factual errors. The High Court said that the distinction between questions of law and fact is ‘vital’ in many legal contexts, but it also acknowledged that ‘no satisfactory test of universal application has yet been formulated’.3 The clear implication was that the law-fact distinction produces different results in different fields of law.

If the distinction depends on the context, it follows that philosophical4 distinctions are as likely to distract as to assist. Some of the jurisprudential literature starts out confidently enough, with definitions of law and fact. A question of fact involves an inquiry into whether something happened or will * Faculty o f Law, University o f N ew South Wales. The author gratefully acknowledges the comments and assistance o f Sir Gerard Brennan, Arthur Glass, Justice Handley, John McMillan, Robert Shelly and Neil Williams.

See, eg, Leon Green, Judge and Jury (1930) 270-1:

No two terms o f legal science have rendered better service than ‘law’ and ‘fact’. They are basic assumptions; irreducible minimums and the most comprehensive maximums at the same instant.

They readily accommodate themselves to any meaning we desire to give them. In them and their kind a science of law finds its strength and durability. They are the creations of centuries. What judge has not found refuge in them? The man who could succeed in defining them would be a public enemy.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1 )(e), repealed by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth).

Collector o f Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389, 394.

See Da Costa v R (1968) 118 CLR 186, 194 (Windeyer J): ‘When the distinction [between questions of fact and questions of law] determines whether or not in a particular case an appeal lies, there is room for questioning whether it has in philosophy or logic an essential and

Abstract

and universal character.’

–  –  –

happen, and is quite separate from any assertion as to its legal effect.5 A question of law involves the identification and interpretation of a norm which is usually of general application. That distinction quickly becomes blurred, however, by the difficulties of classifying the interactions between norm and fact. The difficulties in classifying the application of law to the facts as found occupy the bulk of this article. However, there are further difficulties in classifying the processes leading up to the finding of facts.

Fact-finding inevitably involves a prior knowledge of which facts might be legally relevant. We cannot know which facts to look for unless we know why we are looking, and it is the law which tells us that. The law also requires the conversion of doubts, uncertainties and hidden or explicit assumptions as to how the world works into positive findings of fact.6 For example, a finding in a contract dispute that promises were probably exchanged becomes a finding that they were exchanged, because the legal process itself helps reduce highly contingent factual possibilities into relatively straightforward factual propositions before declaring the legal result.7 Furthermore, in any practical or moral sense, no court could contemplate finding the facts without having some idea of the possible legal consequences of a finding one way or the other. Those consequences, therefore, set the level of persuasion for the fact finder in every case.8 The contingent nature of the process leading to a seemingly straightforward finding of facts is sometimes matched by the equally contingent process of finding the law.9 The issues raised by the choices offered between legal rules, or different versions or interpretations of legal rules, are fairly clearly questions of law themselves. However, the ability to choose between competing rules or formulations of rules is often a product of the degree of specificity or generality with which the facts may have been found. None of this is intended as an argument for fact scepticism,1 or for dismissing the law-fact distinction as a Louis Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (1965) 548. Justice Finkelstein quoted Jaffe with approval in SRL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 765, but only in the context o f dissenting from Justice Katz’s view that a predicted fact is not a ‘particular fact’ for the purposes of s 476(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That paragraph was the same as s 5(3)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It provided for judicial review where the impugned decision was based upon a particular fact which did not exist, and was recently explained in Jegatheeswaran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 865 CJegatheeswaran’). Justice Finkelstein explored the different characterisations of ‘fact’ (namely, positive and negative; past, present and future; primary and secondary; perceived and inferred; evidential and ultimate, operative, dispositive, material or constitutive; proven and intuited) in Jegatheeswaran [2001] FCA 865 [52]-[59].





Jegatheeswaran [2001] FCA 865 [58]-[59].

7 See R D Friedman, ‘Standards of Persuasion and the Distinction Between Fact and Law’ (1992) 86 Northwestern Law Review 916.

See A A S Zuckerman, ‘Law, Fact or Justice?’ (1986) 66 Boston University Law Review 487.

See Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520, 540.

10 C f Donald Nicholson, ‘Truth, Reason and Justice: Epistemology and Politics in Evidence Discourse’ (1994) 57 Modern Law Review 726.

2001 Unreasonableness and Error of Law 317 philosophical illusion or lawyer’s charade.1 It does, however, point to the distinct possibility that for legal purposes, questions of fact can contain elements of law.

Causation, for example, is a question of fact in negligence, even though it may require a selection between causal conditions according to value judgments and policy factors, for the purpose of attributing legal responsibility.1 Some of those policy choices clearly have legal elements to them.1 Causation is also a question of fact in the law of obligations in calculating losses, although the same caveat as to policy content applies.1 Causation may have a different meaning for the purposes of determining refugee status, but once again, this is because refugee law has its own legal, factual and policy contexts, and once again, it is still a question of fact.1 If one can take causation’s policy elements as including legal questions, the net result is that causation can become a question of law when a court limited to such questions wishes to lay down legal parameters to guide the tribunal of fact; hence the large number of appellate decisions on an issue bearing the overall classification of a question of fact.16

II UNREASONABLENESS AS LAW AND FACT

The law’s assessment of the reasonableness of conduct or decisions exhibits the same multiple features. The standard of reasonableness performs different functions within the tort of negligence. It is generally classified as an issue of fact, but the large number of judicial expositions as to how the reasonableness standard is to operate in particular areas is clearly designed to set guidelines or parameters for future cases. As with causation, the reasonableness standard can become a question of law to the extent that a court limited to such questions intervenes to lay down general guidelines governing the tribunals of fact. The last 20 years or so have seen the general tort of negligence replace more specific C f Kenneth Vinson, ‘Artificial World of Law and Fact’ (1987) 11 Legal Studies Forum 311; and Kenneth Vinson, ‘Disentangling Law and Fact: Echoes o f Proximate Cause in the Workers’ Compensation Coverage Formula’ (1996) 47 Alabama Law Review 723. Both articles argue that the distinction between errors of law and fact is made entirely to produce the desired outcome, and that it should therefore be discarded. See also Bibi Sangha, ‘The Law/Fact Distinction in Contract: a Lawyer’s Plaything?’ (1994) 7 Journal of Contract Law 113.

March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; and New South Wales v Taylor (2001) 178 ALR 32, 36.

See AMP General Insurance Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2001] NSWCA 186 [27] (Spigelman CJ): ‘As emphasised by the High Court in March v Stramare [(E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 516 and 524], causation is not only a factual question, it is also a normative one.’ Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254, 285.

See Chen v Minister fo r Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293, 314-15 (Kirby J).

See, eg, Woolfe v Tasmania [2001] TASSC 66; and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Sarrazola [No 2] (2001) 107 FCR 184, 199. See also Nicola Padfield, ‘Clean Water and Muddy Causation: Is Causation a Question of Law or Fact, or Just a Way of Allocating Blame?’ [1995] Criminal Law Review 683, where it is argued that causation is a question of fact in English homicide cases, but a question o f law in English pollution prosecutions. (It is also a question of fact in Australian murder cases: Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378, 387-8.) Volume 24(2) UNSW Law Journal tort liability rules covering highway authorities,1 occupiers of land and premises,1 and the escape of fire or dangerous things from a defendant’s property.1 This represents a shift from more complex liability regimes to a general negligence regime, with fewer hard and fast rules. That should produce more questions of fact and fewer questions of law. However, it will not impede the exposition of general legal guidelines for these areas. In the area of medical negligence claims, the High Court has insisted on setting its own standard of care, rather than deferring to the standards and opinions of reputable medical practitioners. At the same time, it has laid down general legal principles to structure this question of fact.20 Causation and reasonable care, therefore, can be both fact and law, depending on context. They arise in contexts where a court has to assess what happened and why, and what ought to have happened and who should be responsible for not having brought that about. So far as reasonableness is relevant, it is relevant to the act of judging the legal outcome of acts or conduct, rather than the acceptability of an official decision. In that context, an unreasonable want of care, for example, takes the defendant’s balance of precaution and risk beyond the realm where the court merely disagrees with it, to the realm where the court concludes that there is no room for reasonable minds to differ as to what should have been done. The reasonableness standard, therefore, is premised on the notion of relative autonomy. In negligence, it is the relative autonomy of defendants to judge for themselves how to act. The autonomy is relative, because the transition from reasonable to unreasonable marks the crossing of the boundary from judicial abstention to intervention.

The reasonableness standard performs a similar function in the law of judicial review, but it is more difficult to explain or justify in that context. Judicial review consistently denies review on the merits, which is a matter left for the judgment or discretion of the bureaucrat or agency concerned. All of the judicial review grounds emphasise the relative autonomy of the bureaucracy. Provided bureaucrats do the job which Parliament has given them, it is not the role of judicial review to intervene simply because the court might have viewed the facts differently or preferred a different outcome. Legality and merits are strictly separate. Review for so-called Wednesbury2 unreasonableness, however, challenges the dividing line between merits and legality, because its trigger is the poor quality of the bureaucratic decision. It has, for that reason, been the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty. Many cases say that the unreasonableness has to be extreme.22 They have yet to say that it should also be Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 180 ALR 145.

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479.

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520, holding that Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 should no longer be seen as generating a liability regime separate from negligence.

Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 ( ‘Wednesbury’).

See, eg, Minister fo r Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611, 626, in

particular (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J):



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 7 |


Similar works:

«SPEEDTREE® FOR UNREAL ENGINE 4 SUBSCRIPTION END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT This END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (the “EULA”) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) (collectively “You”) and Interactive Data Visualization, Inc., a South Carolina corporation with offices at 5446 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 201, Lexington, South Carolina 29072 (“IDV”), for the SpeedTree® for Unreal Engine 4 Subscription software product, which includes computer software...»

«NGO Consultation with UN/IGOs on Trafficking in Persons, Prostitution and the Global Sex Industry “Trafficking and the Global Sex Industry: Need for Human Rights Framework” June 21-22 1999 Room XII Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland 1) INTRODUCTION 2) RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NGO CONSULTATION WITH UN/IGOS ON TRAFFICKING IN A) PERSONS, PROSTITUTION AND THE GLOBAL SEX INDUSTRY 5 B) RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP 8 C) RECOMMENDATIONS FROM...»

«Theory in Action, Vol. 9, No. 3, July (© 2016) DOI:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.16021 Book Review: Luke Gittos. Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth: From Steubenville to Ched Evans. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2015. ISBN: 978-1845408374 (Paperback). 140 Pages. $28.96. Reviewed by Rob Lyons1 [Article copies available for a fee from The Transformative Studies Institute. E-mail address: journal@transformativestudies.org Website: http://www.transformativestudies.org ©2016 by The Transformative...»

«Centre for Research in Air and Space Law Centre de recherche en droit aérien et spatial Unravelling Open Skies by Allan I. Mendelsohn UNRAVELLING OPEN SKIES  by Allan I. Mendelsohn  ABSTRACT In this paper, the author discusses the three very controversial international aviation issues that are currently confronting the United States (US) Government: (1) whether Norwegian Air International (NAI) is a flag of convenience (or a corporate inversion) whose pending application to operate...»

«IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MUNICIPAL DIVISION, TAX SECTION Horizon Group XXI, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. No. 11 TX 0024 ) ) Chicago Department of Revenue, ) · Respondent. ) DECISION This matter comes before this Administrative Law Judge after argument on the motion for summary judgment filed by the Petitioner, Horizon Group XXI (hereinafter.the taxpayer). The Chicago Department of Revenue, now known as the Chicago Department of Finance (hereinafter...»

«March 2015 Amir N. Licht Radzyner Law School Phone: 972-9-9527332 Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya Fax: 972-9-9513075 Kanfe Nesharim Street Email: alicht@idc.ac.il Herzliya 46150 Web: www.faculty.idc.ac.il/licht Blog: ‫נקודה בסוף משפט‬ Israel ACADEMIC POSITIONS AND TEACHING Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya 2014-to date Full Professor. Corporate Law, Securities Regulation, Advanced Corporate Governance, Law and Social Norms, Fiduciary Law, Securities...»

«HIGH COURT BULLETIN Produced by the Legal Research Officer, High Court of Australia Library [2015] HCAB 4 (27 May 2015) A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court‟s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated 1: Cases Handed Down 2: Cases Reserved 3: Original Jurisdiction 4: Special Leave Granted 5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated. 26 6: Special Leave...»

«Server Administrator Storage Management Notes, Cautions, and Warnings NOTE: A NOTE indicates important information that helps you make better use of your computer. CAUTION: A CAUTION indicates either potential damage to hardware or loss of data and tells you how to avoid the problem. WARNING: A WARNING indicates a potential for property damage, personal injury, or death. Copyright Copyright © 2014 Dell Inc. All rights reserved. This product is protected by U.S. and international copyright and...»

«Rethinking International Relations Theory in Islam: Toward a More Adequate Approach Mohammad Abo-Kazleh The legal foundation of foreign relations in Islam is based on Sharīy’ah. The original sources of Sharīy’ah are the Quran and the Prophetic traditions (Sunnah). Derived from Sharīy’ah is the Fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence which covers the myriad of problems and issues that arise in the course of man’s life. (al-Mawdūdī, 2002) Among the main issues which the contemporary Islamic...»

«TO ALOSTRAEL Virgin Guardian of the Sangraal in the Abbey of Thelema in Telepylus, and to ASTARTE LULU PANTHEA its youngest member, I dedicate this story of its Herculean labours toward releasing Mankind from every form of bondage. PREFACE This is a true story. It has been rewritten only so far as was necessary to conceal personalities. It is a terrible story ; but it is also a story of hope and of beauty. It reveals with startling clearness the abyss on which our civilisation trembles. But the...»

«Power Verbs for Managers and Executives This page intentionally left blank Power Verbs for Managers and Executives Hundreds of Verbs and Phrases to Communicate More Dynamically and Effectively MICHAEL LAWRENCE FAULKNER WITH MICHELLE FAULKNER-LUNSFORD Vice President, Publisher: Tim Moore Associate Publisher and Director of Marketing: Amy Neidlinger Executive Editor: Jeanne Glasser Operations Specialist: Jodi Kemper Marketing Manager: Megan Graue Cover Designer: Chuti Prasertsith Managing Editor:...»

«Consent Agenda Item I-A Item I-A CALLED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF WATER WORKS TRUSTEES HELD AT THE OFFICE OF THE DES MOINES WATER WORKS PURSUANT TO NOTICE, TUESDAY, December 15, 2015 3:30pm Present: Mr. Graham R. Gillette, presiding; Ms. Leslie A. Gearhart and Ms. Susan R. Huppert. Staff members attending were: Pat Bruner, Ted Corrigan, Peggy Freese, Doug Garnett, Amy Kahler, Mike McCurnin, Laura Sarcone, Bill Stowe, Jennifer Terry and Michelle Watson. Also in attendance was Rick Malm, legal...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.thesis.dislib.info - Online materials, documents

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.