A Murky Methodology: Standards of Review in Administrative Law
Dean R. Knight
Victoria University of Wellington - Faculty of Law
New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, Vol. 6, No. 117, 2008
Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 12/2011
The approach the courts should adopt when reviewing the "merits" of an administrative decision continues to be a vexed issue. For many years Wednesbury unreasonableness was regarded as the appropriate monolithic standard for this task. However, dissatisfaction with this standard has led to the development of alternative approaches, most notably the concept of variegated standards of reasonableness. This article explores the methodology adopted by New Zealand courts on this point and concludes that, while the courts have been prepared to adopt a sliding-scale of unreasonableness, the approach is under-developed and inadequate in a number of respects. From the existing experience, a refined five-standard framework is proposed to guide the degree of intensity the courts should adopt in their supervisory judicial review role.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 48
Keywords: Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Intensity of Review, New Zealand, Unreasonableness, IrrationalityAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 13, 2008 ; Last revised: August 26, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.438 seconds