Relevant Considerations in Judicial Review — Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 is the foundational Australian authority on the “relevant considerations” ground of judicial review — the ground engaged where a decision-maker fails to take into account a consideration they were bound to take into account.
Mason J’s framework
- The ground is only made out where the decision-maker fails to consider a matter they are bound to consider — and what they are bound to consider is determined by the statute, expressly or by implication from its subject-matter, scope and purpose.
- Where the discretion is unconfined, the factors that may be considered are similarly unconfined, subject to any implied limitation from the statute’s purpose.
- Not every failure vitiates: the consideration must be material enough that ignoring it could have affected the outcome — insignificant matters do not ground review.
- The weight to be given to a relevant consideration is generally for the decision-maker, reviewable only on Wednesbury-style unreasonableness grounds.
- A minister deciding personally is bound to consider the most recent and accurate material on a critical issue in the department’s possession — the proposition for which Peko-Wallsend is most often cited.
Where the ground sits today
The ground is codified for Commonwealth decisions in ss 5(2)(a)–(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and remains available at common law and under s 75(v) of the Constitution as a species of jurisdictional error. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 remains the companion authority on what counts as a reviewable “decision” under the ADJR Act.
Key authorities
- Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40
High Court of Australia31 July 1986
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 — Mason J’s five propositions on the failure-to-consider ground, including the duty to consider the most recent and accurate departmental material.
- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond ("Bond Media case") [1990] HCA 33
High Court of Australia26 July 1990
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 — the leading authority on what constitutes a reviewable “decision” under the ADJR Act.
Related doctrine guides
This guide was generated by Barrister AI from the primary authorities linked above. It is general information, not legal advice — verify every proposition against the linked judgments before relying on it. Open any case above to read the judgment, or try Barrister AI free to research across the full knowledge graph of Australian legal principles.