Jurisdictional error
Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice. Australia. In Australia, the definition of jurisdictional error can be found in High Court judgements. Hayne J has defined jurisdictional error in the following terms: A more specific definition of Jurisdictional error is defined  as follows: The power of superior courts to respond to jurisdictional error by issuing the prerogative writs is entrenched in Australia's constitution: However, the term has been subject to criticism. In 2008, Kirby J held: Types. Mark Aronson identifies eight categories of jurisdictional error: This list is non-exhaustive, as these grounds lead to invalidity and therefore jurisdictional error. Jurisdictional error is a separate ground of review under the ADJR Act, sought on the ground "that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision". The nine statutory grounds of review provided  for in s 5 of the ADJR Act overlap substantially with the concept of jurisdictional error at common law. Jurisdictional error can "be seen to embrace a number of different kinds of errors" administered in an administrative tribunal. As such, the circumstances of a particular case may permit more than one characterisation." Canada. Canadian administrative law has a similar set of concepts called "substantive review" which incorporates most of the criteria of jurisdictional error Singapore. In Singapore they are known as "precedent fact errors" but work effectively like the United Kingdom jurisprudence. Hong Kong. Judicial review in Hong Kong is  effectively the English system and is enshrined in Article 35 of the constitution. United Kingdom. In the UK, the House of Lords has held they are "... an incorrect interpretation of a statutory phrase by the ... authorities [that] amounted to an error of law that was judicially reviewable". As with Canada, judicial review in Scotland does not use the term but holds many of the concepts in their judicial review system. Grounds. In the CCSU Case, Lord Diplock suggests that the grounds can be reduced to three or four broad concepts – "illegality", "irrationality", "procedural impropriety" and "proportionality". Other countries. The term  jurisdictional error is not used in: