Where an administrative decision-maker must form an evaluative judgment on the basis of conflicting indicators, it will be difficult if not impossible to establish a 'no evidence' ground of judicial review. An administrative review body that indicates its proposed determination after conducting an appropriate factual investigation does not thereby impose a legal onus on the applicant. The minimum content of any implied obligation to give reasons, and the consequences of non-compliance, must be derived from the relevant statutory scheme rather than from standards applicable to judicial decision-making. An implied obligation to give reasons for an evaluative administrative determination does not extend to requiring the decision-maker to assign weighting to particular indicators or to provide individual reasons for each person affected.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 38 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 38 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.