Administrative law · Judicial review
Wednesbury and legal unreasonableness: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
Parliament is taken to intend that statutory powers be exercised reasonably. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 the High Court explained what legal unreasonableness means and when it makes a decision invalid.
Last updated 9 November 2026
In short
- A statutory discretion is presumed to be conditioned on being exercised reasonably.
- A decision may be legally unreasonable if it lacks an evident and intelligible justification, not only if it is one no reasonable person could make.
- Courts do not review the merits. The threshold is demanding.
- On appeal, a primary judge’s conclusion about unreasonableness is reviewed for correctness: SZVFW.
From Wednesbury to Li
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 described an unreasonable decision as one so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In Li the High Court held that this formulation is not the only measure. Legal unreasonableness can be found where a decision lacks an evident and intelligible justification, or where a disproportionate weight was given to a matter.
The decision in Li
A tribunal refused an adjournment to allow a visa applicant to obtain a corrected skills assessment, and affirmed the refusal of the visa. The High Court held that refusing the adjournment was legally unreasonable in the circumstances. Read it in the case index: Li [2013] HCA 18.
Later High Court decisions
- Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30: on appeal, whether a decision is legally unreasonable is reviewed for correctness, not under House v The King.
- Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34: an error is ordinarily jurisdictional only if it is material to the decision.
Frequently asked questions
What is legal unreasonableness?
A ground of judicial review: a decision made under a statutory power is invalid if it is legally unreasonable, including where it lacks an evident and intelligible justification.
Is Wednesbury unreasonableness still the test in Australia?
It remains one description, but Minister v Li held that legal unreasonableness is not confined to the Wednesbury formulation.
Sources
General information, not legal advice. See our editorial policy for how this page is sourced and reviewed, and how to report an error.
Read the authorities, not a summary of a summary
Barrister AI links each principle to the judgments that apply it, with pinpoint citations you can check paragraph by paragraph.
Start free