LAWS50032 · Administrative Law
Jurisdictional Fact and Unreasonableness
Courts normally do not review fact-finding — but two doctrines are the exceptions that matter on the exam. A jurisdictional fact (JF) is a fact the statute makes a condition of the power: where it is cast objectively, the court decides it for itself (no deference, and it may receive fresh evidence — Enfield); where it is cast subjectively as a state of satisfaction or opinion, the court polices that state for illogicality or irrationality — 'no rational or logical decision-maker could have reached it' (SZMDS), a high bar and a last resort. Separately, every discretion carries an implied limit of legal unreasonableness, recalibrated by Minister for Immigration v Li beyond the old Wednesbury extreme into a more structured (if still demanding) standard. Both doctrines walk a tight legality/merits line (Quin): the trick is to screen the released statute for a precondition phrased as a fact or event (objective JF) or a state of mind ('if the Minister is satisfied' — subjective JF), and to screen the outcome for unreasonableness — while never arguing that the decision was merely 'wrong', which is merits.
What this chapter covers
- 01Why courts normally leave fact-finding to the decision-maker
- 02Jurisdictional fact: a fact made a condition of power (construction)
- 03Objective JF — the court decides for itself; fresh evidence (Enfield; M70)
- 04Subjective JF — review for illogicality/irrationality (SZMDS)
- 05Legal unreasonableness as an implied limit (Wednesbury → Li)
- 06SZMDS illogicality; the legality/merits line (Quin)
Worked example: objective or subjective jurisdictional fact?
- +1Construe the precondition: the question is always whether Parliament made the fact a condition of power, and whether it is cast objectively or subjectively.
- +1'If a building is unsafe' — objective JF: the existence of the fact is a condition the court decides for itself, with no deference, and it may take fresh evidence (Enfield).
- +1'If the Minister is satisfied' — subjective JF: the condition is the Minister's state of satisfaction, reviewable only for illogicality or irrationality — no rational decision-maker could have reached it (SZMDS); a high bar.
- +1Keep on the legality side: in neither case may you argue the decision was simply 'wrong' — that is merits, outside review (Quin).
Key terms
- Jurisdictional fact
- A fact the statute makes a condition of the existence of power. Getting it wrong is jurisdictional — not the ordinary fact-finding courts leave to the decision-maker. Whether it is objective or subjective is a question of construction.
- Objective jurisdictional fact
- A condition where the court decides for itself whether the required fact existed when the power was exercised, with no deference and the ability to receive fresh evidence (Enfield; the fact may be a complex of elements).
- Subjective jurisdictional fact
- A condition cast as a state of satisfaction or opinion ('if the Minister is satisfied'). The court does not decide the fact itself; it reviews the state of mind for illogicality or irrationality — no rational decision-maker could have reached it (SZMDS). A high bar and a last resort.
- Legal unreasonableness
- An implied limit on every statutory discretion: an outcome (or reasoning) so unreasonable that it falls outside the scope of the power. Recalibrated by Li beyond the extreme Wednesbury formulation into a more structured but still demanding standard.
- The legality/merits line
- The boundary (Quin) between reviewing a decision for legality (permissible) and re-deciding it on its merits (impermissible on judicial review). Jurisdictional fact and unreasonableness both sit on the legality side — arguing a decision was merely 'wrong' crosses into merits.
Jurisdictional Fact and Unreasonableness FAQ
What makes a fact 'jurisdictional'?
Construction: the statute must make the fact a condition of the power, not just a matter for the decision-maker to weigh. If it does, an error about that fact is jurisdictional. Then ask whether the condition is cast objectively (the court decides it) or subjectively (the court reviews the state of satisfaction for illogicality).
What is the difference between objective and subjective jurisdictional facts?
For an objective JF the court decides for itself whether the fact existed, with no deference and possibly on fresh evidence (Enfield). For a subjective JF the condition is the decision-maker's state of satisfaction, and the court reviews only for illogicality or irrationality — that no rational decision-maker could have reached it (SZMDS), a high last-resort bar.
Is unreasonableness just 'the decision was wrong'?
No — that would be merits review (Quin). Legal unreasonableness is an implied limit on the power: after Li, it asks whether the outcome or reasoning lacks an evident and intelligible justification, a structured but still demanding standard well short of disagreeing with the result. Keep it firmly on the legality side.
Exam move
Make precondition-spotting a reflex. On the released statute, hunt for a condition phrased as a fact or event ('if a building is...') — objective JF, the court decides it itself (Enfield) — or as a state of mind ('if the Minister is satisfied...') — subjective JF, reviewable only for illogicality (SZMDS). Separately, screen every discretionary outcome for legal unreasonableness (Li, the modern test; SZMDS illogicality). The recurring trap is drifting into merits: anchor every argument to the legality side and to Quin, and never say the decision was simply 'wrong'.
