High Court revives Wednesbury unreasonableness

Key Points:

The decision in Li could be the beginning of the integration of the concepts of unreasonableness, rationality and logicality in judicial review.

The High Court in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18 found that the failure by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) to grant an adjournment to an applicant was unreasonable and rendered the Tribunal's refusal of her application invalid.

The decision is noteworthy because it is one of the few occasions where a court has found unreasonableness on the part of the decision-maker. Perhaps more importantly, though, the judgments in Li set out the High Court's vision for unreasonableness as a ground of review.

The application for review and the decision in Li

Li involved an applicant for a type of visa which required a successful skills assessment from Trade Recognition Australia (TRA) as a criterion for grant of the visa. Initially, Ms Li's application for a visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. She applied for review by the MRT.

After the MRT hearing, Ms Li's migration agent informed the MRT that Ms Li's application to TRA was unsuccessful but that the decision of the TRA was incorrect. The...