Administrative law › Module guides › Procedural fairness

The idea

Procedural fairness is the highest frequency ground cluster in the subject, and it has two limbs: the hearing rule and the rule against bias. The threshold is easily met. Fairness presumptively attaches wherever a decision affects a person's rights or interests (Kioa v West), and excluding it takes clear statutory words (Saeed). Where the statute codes the hearing you construe its sections first and let Kioa fill the gaps only.

The marks sit in content and application. The hearing rule asks what practical justice required (WZARH) and whether credible, relevant and significant adverse information was put to the person, with its substance disclosed even where the source is protected (VEAL). Bias runs in two steps: actual bias, a mind closed to persuasion (Jia), then apprehended bias on the two stage fair minded observer test (CNY17). A hearing rule breach bites only where material, but bias is inherently material and needs no such run.

Some rules carry a small icon marking the structure the rule takes. The icon is a reading aid and nothing more. The facts of the cases and the words of the rules do the work.

Attack plan

1. Threshold. Procedural fairness presumptively attaches where a decision affects rights, interests or legitimate expectations (Kioa), and exclusion needs clear words (Saeed). Where the interest is obvious, one sentence disposes of it.
2. Statutory code check. If the statute codes the hearing, construe its sections first and let Kioa fill gaps only.
3. Hearing content. Ask what practical justice required (WZARH) and whether credible relevant significant adverse information was put (Kioa, Brennan J; VEAL).
4. Bias, wherever a personal or political entanglement is planted. Run actual bias first (Jia), then apprehended through the two stage test (CNY17).
5. Materiality hand off. A hearing rule breach is jurisdictional error where material (Aala; SZMTA), and bias is inherently material (Module 5). **Router.** threshold -> statutory code? -> hearing content -> bias planted? actual then apprehended -> materiality hand off. The hearing rule appears in five of six held papers and bias in four, so this is the highest frequency ground cluster in the subject.

Cases at a glance

Case	In a line
Kioa v West	Deportation on undisclosed allegations. Fairness presumptively attaches where a decision affects rights or interests, and adverse credible relevant significant material must be put (Brennan J)
Saeed v MIAC	Offshore visa refused on uninvestigated adverse information. The statutory exclusion did not reach her case, and the principle of legality demands clear words to exclude a fair hearing
MIBP v WZARH	Reviewer changed without notice and no fresh interview. Content of the hearing rule is set by practical justice, and legitimate expectation is gone
Applicant VEAL v MIMIA	Confidential dob in letter accusing the applicant. The substance had to be disclosed though the author's identity could be withheld, and giving it no weight was no answer
MIBP v SZMTA	Undisclosed s 438 notification altered the procedural context. A hearing rule breach is jurisdictional error only where material, a realistic possibility of a different decision
MIMA v Jia Legeng	Minister's radio comments before cancelling a visa. Actual bias needs a mind closed on the balance of probabilities, judged against the office of the decision maker
CNY17 v MIBP	Applies the two stage apprehended bias test. Identify the interest or conduct, articulate the connection to a feared departure, and credit the fair minded lay observer with assumed knowledge
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala	Confirmed a breach of procedural fairness is a jurisdictional error reached by the constitutional writs, with certiorari ancillary
Isbester v Knox City Council	Prosecutor sat on the panel that ordered the dog destroyed. States the two step test and the observer's assumed knowledge (SUPP, routed through CNY17)

The rules

R71 · When does procedural fairness apply? arrow Procedural fairness presumptively attaches where a decision affects a person's rights, interests or legitimate expectations in a direct and immediate way. Kioa, Mason J and Brennan J.

R72 · Can the statute exclude a fair hearing? arrow The presumption is displaced only by clear words or necessary intendment, because the principle of legality requires irresistibly clear language before Parliament is taken to exclude a fair hearing. Saeed.

R73 · What sets the content of the hearing rule? compass The content of the hearing rule is whatever practical justice requires to make the decision fairly in the circumstances, so legitimate expectation no longer supplies the question. WZARH.

R74 · What governs hearing content where the statute codes the hearing? arrow Where the statute erects its own hearing code, the content of fairness is read from those provisions first and the common law fills only the gaps they leave.

R75 · What adverse material must be put to the person? checklist Adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision must be put to the person for response, being information that cannot be dismissed without further consideration. Kioa, Brennan J.

R76 · Does confidentiality or giving material no weight excuse non disclosure? arrow Confidentiality does not excuse non disclosure of the substance of adverse allegations, and a decision maker cannot avoid disclosure by professing to give the material no weight. VEAL.

R77 · What must be proved for actual bias? checklist Actual bias requires proof on the balance of probabilities that the decision maker's mind was closed to persuasion, assessed against the statutory framework and the character of the office. Jia.

R78 · What is the test for apprehended bias? staircase Apprehended bias runs a two stage test that first identifies the interest or conduct said to divert the decision maker, then articulates the logical connection between that matter and a feared departure from deciding on the merits. CNY17 ; Isbester.

R79 · What knowledge is the fair minded lay observer credited with? compass The fair minded lay observer is credited with knowledge of the nature of the decision, the statutory framework and the decision maker's office when assessing whether impartiality might be lacking. CNY17.

R80 · When is a breach of procedural fairness a jurisdictional error? arrow A breach of procedural fairness is a jurisdictional error where it is material, meaning compliance could realistically have produced a different decision on the balance of probabilities. Aala ; SZMTA.

R81 · What kind of interest attracts fairness? arrow What matters is not the kind of interest but the manner in which it is apt to be affected; liberty, status, livelihood, reputation and proprietary or financial interests all qualify. Brennan J.

R82 · What role does legitimate expectation now play? arrow Legitimate expectation survives only as a label in the formulation and supplies neither the threshold nor the content question, so no argument should be built on it.

R83 · Should bias be argued where the hearing rule looks excluded? arrow Where the hearing rule looks excluded, still argue bias, because the exclusion of procedural fairness can be read down as uncertain whether it reaches the bias limb.

R84 · When is an oral hearing required? arrow An oral hearing is not always required, but it is most often needed where the applicant's credibility is in issue, because seeing the applicant lets the decision maker assess demeanour and clarify confusion. WZARH.

R85 · Must a change to the procedural context be notified? arrow A change to the procedural context, such as a change of reviewer or the invocation of a document regime, must be notified so the applicant can make submissions about it. WZARH; SZMTA.

R86 · Can the requirements of fairness shrink? arrow Content can shrink; urgency, or a prohibited immigrant deliberately evading the authorities, may reduce the requirements of fairness, on some facts even toward nothingness. Kioa.

R87 · How does the identity of the decision maker affect the bias standard? compass The identity of the decision maker shapes the standard; a Minister is an elected official, accountable to Parliament and entitled to be forthright about the portfolio, so the detachment expected of a judge does not apply. Jia.

R88 · What is the governing question for apprehended bias? compass The governing question is whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision maker might not bring an impartial mind to the decision, a question of possibility that is real and not remote, not probability.

Common traps

The single undisclosed breach. Answers that put only the tip capped the ground. Walk the statute and harvest every credible relevant significant item that was never put.

The statutory code mask. Where the statute codes the hearing the examiner wanted the sections argued first, with a proper interpretation of the notice provision, not Kioa at large. Arguing the common law where the statute supplies a show cause code undershoots the ground and misses the marks that sat in the construction.

The actual bias skip. A personal entanglement is planted to be argued as actual bias first. Many students called the test too hard to make out and moved straight to apprehended bias, which was not sufficient for full marks. Run Jia on the facts, reach a conclusion, then run apprehended bias.

The unfurnished lay observer. Very few answers credited the fair minded lay observer with the assumed knowledge the test demands. Name what the observer knows, the nature of the decision, the statutory framework and the decision maker's office, then draw the apprehension from the planted interest.

Threshold words wasted. Where a licence or livelihood is plainly affected the threshold is obvious and needs one sentence. Spending a paragraph proving that rights are engaged burns the time the hearing rule and bias need. State the presumption, note that no clear words exclude it, and move on.

Practise this module

The practice bank runs this module inside invented scenarios with a Pass answer, an H1 answer and examiner's comments for every drill. Read the rules above, then attempt the bank blind and mark yourself against the model.

Practise this module →