Book Review: Review of Administrative Action
| Published date | 01 December 1978 |
| Author | G. D. S. Taylor |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7800900406 |
| Date | 01 December 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
BOOK REVIEWS
Review
0/
Administrative Action
by
HARRY
WHITMORE,
LL.B. (Syd.),
LL.M.
(Yale);
Professor of Law, University of New South Wales,
Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Barrister and
Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and
MARK
ARONSON,
B.JURIS.,
LL.B. (Hons) (Monash), D.PHIL. (Oxon.);
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales, Barrister and
Solicitor (Victoria). (The Law Book Company, 1978), pp. i-xlv, 1-519.
Cloth, recommended retail price $28.50 (ISBN: 0455 19592
7);
Paperback, recommended retail price $24.50 (ISBN: 0455 19593
5).
This book
is
doubly welcome.
It
is
the first comprehensive discussion
of judicial review of administrative action in Australia, and it contains
extensive footnoting which should, in principle, lead the reader to all
significant cases on apoint.
In
their preface, the authors state that the volume
is
designed
primarily for practitioners and that its chapters are self-contained "so
that quick reference
is
possible where problem-solving
is
required". This
book will
be
reviewed in the light of these aims and, in particular, the
reviewer's experience in using the book for problem-solving.
Abook designed for the practitioner and problem-solving must
provide an adequate index, table of contents, and plentiful cross-
references through the text. Review 0/ Administrative Action
is
deficient in these respects. The table of contents merely lists the chapter
headings and
so
cannot be used for problem-solving. The index contains
some 700 references for atext of 512 pages, and just under half of
those references are the titles of sub-sections of the text (which could
well have appeared in the table of contents). The index
is
inadequate
in other respects. The primary heading "delegated legislation", for
instance, contains six references, none of which
is
to procedural defects
in making delegated legislation
(for
which see page 193 of the
text),
and two of the six entries appear twice. Similarly, the heading "disci-
plinary powers" appears only under the rubric "certiorari" and there
is
only one page reference, yet equally
or
more significant discussion
appears
at
pages 55, 68, 107-108, and 110, to none of which does the
passage referred to in the index provide across-reference. Afurther
example of asituation in which cross-references should have been
provided
is
on page 110.
It
is
said that the wrongful rejection of
evidence does not itself amount to abreach of natural justice. There
is
no cross-reference to error of law in relation to evidence.
(It
may also
be noted that the authors' statement
is
inaccurate since rejection of
evidence may sometimes result in afailure to
hear-see
General
Medical Council
v.
Spackman.)1
The Arrangement 0/ the Book
Review
of
Administrative Action contains three parts (General,
Grounds of Review, and Remedies) and fifteen chapters.
It
is
an
1[1943] A.C. 627.
512
To continue reading
Request your trial