This book presents a navigating framework of legal culture and legality to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the English and Australian determination of the grounds of judicial review. This book facilitates tangible process of how and why jurisdictional error, jurisdictional fact, proportionality and substantive legitimate expectations are debatable in English law, while they are either completely rejected or firmly entrenched in Australian law. This book argues that these differences are not just random. Legality is not just a fig-leaf, but is profoundly rooted in legal systems’ legal culture; hence, it dictates the way in which courts empower, justify, constrain or limit the scope of judicial review. This book presents evidence that courts differ in legal systems and apply diverse ways to determine the scope of judicial review based on their deep understanding of legality, which is embedded in the legal culture of their legal system. This book uses comparative methodology and develops this framework between English and Australian law. Although obvious and important, this book presents a kind of examination that has never been undertaken in this depth and detail before.

A new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.

Explores the English origins of the principles of judicial review in common law jurisdictions and autochthonous pressures for their adaptation.

With the aim of expanding legal scholarly imagination, this Research Agenda takes a tripolar approach to administrative law. It opens the boundaries of administrative law scholarship to new subject areas, exemplifies and opens for consideration several different attitudes to research, and illustrates a multiplicity of different ways of writing about the subject.

Administrative tribunals are a vital part of the public law frameworks of many countries. This is the 1st edited book collection to examine tribunals across the common law world. It brings together key international scholars to discuss current and future challenges. The book includes contributions from leading scholars from all major common law jurisdictions – the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore, India and South Africa. This global analysis is both deep and expansive in its coverage of the operation of administrative tribunals across common law legal systems. The book has two key themes: one is the enduring question of the location and operation of tribunals within public law systems; the second is the continued mission of tribunals to provide administrative justice. The collection is an important addition to global public law scholarship, addressing common problems faced by the tribunals of common law countries, and providing solutions for how tribunals can evolve to match the changing nature of government.

In this Handbook, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law discuss a wide range of issues from a comparative perspective. The book covers the historical beginnings of comparative administrative law scholarship, and discusses important methodological issues and basic concepts such as administrative power and accountability.

Explores how courts vary the depth of scrutiny in judicial review and the virtues of different approaches.