Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin

Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin
Decided	7 June 1990
Citation(s)	(1990) 170 CLR 1, [1990] HCA 21
Case history
Prior action(s)	none
Subsequent action(s)	none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson & Toohey

Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Australian administrative law and to an extent the separation of powers.

Background

The NSW magistracy was reorganised. Quin had been a magistrate but was not recommended for appointment. The Attorney General departed from the previous method of recommending former magistrates. Quin's challenge was on the basis that he had a real expectation to be reappointed.

• that this expectation was founded in natural justice
• Whether estoppel could estoppe a government from changing that policy.

Finding

The High Court of Australia found in favour of the Attorney General ruling that Courts were not able to overrule government policy as the appointment of magistrates is a role of the executive. That "the court has no power to protect a person's rights against adverse decision other than enforceable rights.". "Judicial review has undoubtedly been invoked to set aside administrative acts which are unjust or otherwise unlawful but only to the extent the purported exercise of power is excessive and or otherwise unlawful." Provided the decision was a legitimate application of the policy rather than a ruse.

Principle

The Executive cannot by representation or promise disable itself from performing a statutory duty; this includes the adoption of, or acting in accordance with, a new policy.

See also

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) 1 Cranch 137, 177.