Federal Court. In Direction 79, primary and other considerations were specified as matters that must be taken into account 'where relevant'. For the purposes of determining whether there has been compliance with Direction 79, is relevance a matter to be objectively determined? Should judicial review applicants identify particular aspects of the reasoning of an administrative decision said to be illogical or irrational and then claim that, as they were material, there was legal unreasonableness?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In Direction 79, primary and other considerations were specified as matters that must be taken into account 'where relevant'. For the purposes of determining whether there has been compliance with Direction 79, is relevance "a matter to be objectively determined (such that a failure to take into account a matter that was considered by a court on review to be relevant might be jurisdictional)"?
Question 2: As the specific factors listed in cl 13.2(4) of Direction 79 were only to be considered 'where relevant', was it "necessary to go through each factor and say that there was no material relevant to the factor"?
Question 3: Is the correct approach for a judicial review applicant to identify particular aspects of the reasoning of an administrative decision said to be illogical or irrational and then claim that, as they were material, there was legal unreasonableness?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: