Case: Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564
Outcome: considered
already noted there is authority to support an affirmative answer to this question. It is to be found in the Victorian Supreme Court's decision in the State Electricity Commission case. Authority is also to be found in decisions of this Court. In Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564 , a Full Court held that a failure to give adequate reasons constitutes an error of law justifying the setting aside of an administrative decision. See also Muralidharan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 62 FCR 402 ; Preston v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2004) 39 AAR 177 at 184; Hill v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 832 ; (2004) 207 ALR 470 at 474; and, most recently, Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 137. These were cases in which the tribunal concerned had produced cryptic and uninformative reasons such that the reviewing court could not discern why it was that the tribunal had reached the impugned decision. In particular it was not possible to determine whether the correct legal principles had been applied. In Dornan , the Full Court drew on authorities such as Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 in which appellate courts had found that trial judges erred in law if they failed to provide reasons or sufficient reasons thereby depriving the appeal court of the capacity to determine whether a verdict had been reached in accordance with law. This approach did not enjoy universal acceptance. In Comcare v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647 at 656-9, Finkelstein J reviewed the authorities which commenced with Dornan and concluded that, were he not bound by these decisions, he would not follow them. He drew attention to conflicting decisions, including that of Brennan J in Repatriation Commission v O'Brien [1985] HCA 10 ; (1985) 155 CLR 422 at 445-6 and the English Divisional Court in Mountview Court Properties Ltd v Devlin (1970) 21 P &amp; CR 689. He considered it to be inappropriate to draw on cases in which appellate courts found reasons to be inadequate because, in such cases, no remedies such as a statutory order in the nature of mandamus were available to require the relevant trial judges to rectify the deficiencies in their reasons. His Honour also noted that, in the appellate context, the appellable error was founded on common law doctrine rather than on the construction of a statutory obligation to provide reasons. One might add that there is no compelling reason for treating a decision as errant solely because no reasons or no adequate reasons have been advanced to support it, unless one was attracted to Lord Denning's notion that, if a decision-maker fails to give reasons for a decision, a reviewing court could infer that he did not have any good reasons: see Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] UKHL 1 ; [1968] AC 997 at 1007. In Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49 ; (2009) 108 ALD 329 at 337 Perram J, without expressing a concluded view, said that there was "much to be said" for the views of Finkelstein J in Lees . His Honour suggested two additional considerations which supported Finkelstein J's reasons for doubting the correctness of the decision in Dornan . These additional considerations were: "First, the reasons which attend an administrative decision are conceptually distinct from that decision and it is the decision, and not the reasons which accompany it, which is the subject of judicial review or, as here, appeal under s 44. The reasons have no legal consequences in themselves. Rather, they provide material from which arguments about the correctness of the decision may be crafted. Their legal relevance is, therefore, derivative from the decision to which they are appurtenant. ... ... Second, once the derivative nature is understood it must follow that the legal requirements attending the production of reasons need have no necessary connexion with the legal requirements attending the decision. A decision accompanied by perfectly adequate reasons may be riddled with legal errors just as a decision which is accompanied by inadequate reasons may be legal impeccable. The fallacy in the view that the provision of inadequate reasons is an error of law in the decision springs from the conflation of rules concerned with the making of the decision itself with rules concerned with the provision of reasons, a conflation which is, in my opinion, wholly without warrant. This is not to say that questions of law do not arise from the operation of rules about the provision of reasons. It is only to say that such questions arise dehors the decision and cannot be errors in the decision itself": at 337-8. The Full Court referred to Dornan and noted that, in Lees , Finkelstein J had acknowledged that he was bound to follow Dornan . It referred to Preston and Hill as authority for the proposition that a "failure to state reasons for a decision at least in those circumstances where a statement of reasons is a requirement of the exercise of the decision-making process constitutes an error of law": at [49].