# *Wednesbury* and legal unreasonableness: *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li*
URL: https://www.barristerai.com.au/principles/legal-unreasonableness
Last updated: 2026-11-09
Publisher: Barrister AI

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.

## 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](https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/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

- Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2013/hca/18
- Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2018/hca/30
- Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2018/hca/34

General information, not legal advice. Editorial policy: https://www.barristerai.com.au/editorial-policy