One of the most significant constitutional developments of the past century has been the creation and proliferation of O'administrative tribunals' the main function of which is to adjudicate disputes between citizens and the state by reviewing decisions of government agencies - a task also performed by courts in 'judicial review' proceedings and appeals. Tribunals in aggregate adjudicate many more such disputes than courts, but have received relatively little scholarly attention. This book compares tribunals in Australia, the UK and the US. It offers an account of the concept of 'administrative adjudication', and traces its historical development from the earliest periods of the common law to the twenty-first century. There are chapters dealing with the design of tribunals and tribunal systems and with what tribunals do, what they are for and how they interact with their users. The book ends with a discussion of the place of tribunals in the 'administrative justice system' and speculation about possible future developments.Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication fills a significant gap in the literature and will be of great value to public lawyers and others interested in government accountability.

About the Author

Peter Cane is Distinguished Professor and Director of the John Fleming Centre for Advancement of Legal Research at the Australian National University College of Law.

Table of Contents

1 Survey1.1 The Project1.2 Administrative Tribunals and Administrative Adjudication 1.2.1 The AAT is not a court 1.2.2 The AAT reviews decisions 1.2.3 The AAT's jurisdiction 1.3 The Plan of the Book1.4 Conclusion 2 History2.1 Introduction2.2 1066 to 1800 2.3 19th and 20th Centuries 2.3.1 The UK2.3.2 The US 2.3.3 Australia 2.4 Conclusion 3 Models3.1 The UK Model3.2 The US Model3.3 The Australian Model 3.4 The French Model 3.5 Conclusion 4 Form4.1 Membership, Appointments and Composition4.1.1 Membership 4.1.1.1 Expertise and Specialisation 4.1.1.2 The US 4.1.1.3 The UK 4.1.1.4 Australia 4.1.1.5 The Tasks of Non-court Administrative Adjudicators 4.1.2 Appointment Processes4.1.2.1 Who Appoints and How?4.1.2.2 Terms and Conditions of Service 4.1.3 Composition 4.2 Separation and Independence 4.2.1 The UK4.2.2 Australia 4.2.3 The US 4.3 Structure and Systematisation 4.3.1 Jurisdictional Specialisation 4.3.1.1 Patterns of Specialisation4.3.1.2 The Theory of Specialisation and Amalgamation4.3.2 Supervision and Accountability 4.3.2.1 Hierarchical Supervision4.3.2.2 External Supervision 4.4 Conclusion 5 Function 5.1 Introduction5.2 Categorising Governance Functions: the Legacy of Montesquieu 5.3 Merits Review 5.3.1 Merits Review is a Mode of Review5.3.2 The Substantive Element of Merits Review5.3.2.1 The 'Correct or Preferable' Formula5.3.2.2 The Basis of Merits Review5.3.3 The Procedural Element of Merits Review5.3.4 The Remedial Element of Merits Review 5.4 Merits Review and Judicial Review5.5 The 'Normative Function' of Merits Review and the AAT5.6 Merits Review Outside the AAT 5.7 The Nature of Tribunal Review in Comparator Jurisdictions5.7.1 The UK5.7.2 The US 5.7.3 France5.8 Conclusion 6 Purpose6.1 What is Administrative Justice? 6.2 A Formula for Administrative Justice in Tribunals? 6.3 Jurisdiction6.4 Standing 6.5 Processes 6.5.1 The Paradigm Mode of Decision-Making 6.5.1.1 The Reviewer6.5.1.2 The Respondent 6.5.1.3 The Applicant6.5.2 Alternatives to the Paradigm Mode 6.6 Resources6.7 Conclusion 7 Landscape7.1 The Accountability 'Sector' 7.2 Tribunals and Ombudsmen7.3 Tribunals and Internal Review7.4 Tribunals and Courts 7.4.1 Australia 7.4.2 The US 7.4.3 The UK7.4.4 Re-conceiving the Relationship Between Courts and Tribunals 7.5 Tribunals and ADR/PDR 7.6 Conclusion

Reviews

Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication is a work of considerable scholarship, which throws new light on an important set of institutions that have not hitherto received the attention they deserve. Michael Adler Journal of Law and Society Volume 37, Number 3, 2010 Professor Cane's excellent book helps to redress the lack of academic attention paid to administrative tribunals...This is an outstanding account of Australian tribunal adjudication and its place in the regime of administrative decision-making and law. The detailed and sophisticated use of comparative law analysis helps to understand the choices that have been taken in Australia, what some of the alternatives were (and are), and also the constraints that will continue to shape administrative adjudication. Edward Santow Public Law Review 2010 Issue 21 Cane presents a precise, richly detailed account of administrative organizations, grounded in an impressive survey of the administrative law literature and Cane's own observations ... Such a detailed account is valuable because, as Cane notes, there is not much literature outside of Australia about what administrative tribunals do. Readers will come away impressed with the breadth of research that Cane has conducted on these tribunals and the care with which he details the differences among them. Robert J. Hume Law and Politics Book Review April 6, 2010 The book is clearly and elegantly structured into seven chapters each analysing a different aspect of tribunals. The strengths of this book are to be found principally in the subtle blend of different types of analysis - constitutional, historical and comparative - used to appreciate the role and significance of tribunals. Cane presents a very scholarly and well-informed synthesis of three dimensions of tribunals: their functions across four jurisdictions, their historical development, and their constitutional significance. This book is very much to be welcomed as an excellent addition to the literature. It provides a valuable and wide-ranging study of an important but long neglected set of institutions and it should encourage administrative law scholars to pay much more attention to the work of tribunals. Robert Thomas The Cambridge Law Journal Volume 70, Part 1