see attached. ANSWER 2 QUESTIONS ONLY
LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] Assessment Task #1: Problem Question Assignment Due date: Wednesday 2 September 2020, 10 PM Australian Eastern 4 Standard (Queensland) time Length: 2,000 words (not counting the bibliography, or short headings,1 or any referencing-8 only footnotes) with 10% leeway Weight: 50% Submitted via: electronic copy only (upload through TurnItIn, after running 12 an Originality Check on your final draft) 1 Students are encouraged to use headings to structure your assignments (and to make them easier for readers to follow). As a general rule of thumb, a heading should rarely exceed one line in length, and all headings plus footnotes in total per page should rarely exceed a dozen lines. LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] Assignment Instructions Answer ANY TWO (2) out of the four questions below. All 16 questions are weighted equally (25 marks each). You should aim for 500 to 800 words discussing each question you select (and for 1,800 to 2,200 words overall). Note that, after the common facts given at the beginning, 20 these questions branch may off into slightly different “alternative universes” – so facts stated in one question may appear to contradict those in another. This assignment may cover any material from Topics 2 to 6 24 of this Unit, but will not assess anything that is primarily covered in Topics 7 to 12 (ie, from Week 8 onwards). This means that: • no marks will be awarded for discussing alternative 28 dispute resolution; freedom of information; human rights legislation and anti-discrimination laws; merits appeals tribunals; ombudsman; ouster clauses; privacy laws; remedies; right to reasons; 32 standing; or subordinate legislation. LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] • Instead, students should focus on the judicial review grounds of procedural fairness/ natural justice; 36 statutory authorisation; fettering discretion; unreasonableness and “no evidence.” Students are expected to: • apply the relevant legal rules to the “facts” of a 40 concrete, detailed (and fictitious) case study; • determine which factual details are (or are likely to be) legally relevant; • disregard “red herrings” that are immaterial to the 44 legal issues; • give reasons to support your answer, in particular by citing relevant case-law precedents and legislative provisions, and explaining their rationales; 48 • give due consideration to the main, plausible counter-arguments; and • offer specific conclusions predicting the likely outcome in court. 52 LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] • Don’t use up your words quoting at length from the question “facts” set out in this document. Refer, cite or summarise instead. • When citing from, referring to, or [briefly] quoting 56 from, this document, use the line numbers, in-text – eg “[11]” to refer to line 11, “[17-21]” for lines 17 to 21, etc. Note that these pages are deliberately left un- numbered so, please, don’t cite by page numbers. 60 • Write this as an essay in the third person, not as a “legal advice” or “letter from a solicitor” in the second person. In other words, write “about” the parties, not “to” the parties. 64 • Except where specifically stated otherwise, students may assume that that no existing Administrative Law legislation (ADJR Act, etc) has been amended or changed between the present day and the time the 68 “facts” take place. • Except for Question 2, assume that there is no statutory right of appeal on the merits from the Commission to the AAT or to any other tribunal. 72 LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] • Any sub-questions within a question are of equal weight but need not be discussed at equal length. LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] 76 Common facts: Alia, a single mother, has been evicted from the house she has been renting for the past six years because Carl, the landlord/ property owner, wants to sell it. Alia’s son Luka 80 was 9 when they moved into the house, and is now 15. Alia paid a bond of $5,000 when she first moved in and is claiming it back in full now she is vacating. However, Carl alleges that Alia and/or Luka and/or their guests have 84 caused, or allowed, extensive damage to the property’s walls during the years they resided there. Alia disputes this and has taken the bond dispute to the (fictitious) federal Residential Tenancies Disputes 88 Commission (RTDC), established by the Residential Tenancies Disputes Commission Act 2021 (Cth) (the RTDC Act).2 2 Assume for all purposes of this assignment that the RTDC Act is constitutionally valid. LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] At the RTDC hearing, Carl tenders a copy of the initial Condition Report, signed six years ago by both him and 92 Alia, which reads in relevant part: “Kitchen wall – some damage (minor). Lounge room – some damage (minor).” However, both rooms now have extensive holes in their internal walls, including gaps in the plaster. 96 Carl tells the RTDC that by “minor” damage, he meant to acknowledged “a few scuffs and bumps here and there when she moved in”; however, he says, the walls have been damaged much more extensively and permanently during 100 Alia’s tenancy. Carl claims that the holes currently visible were caused by the tenants or their invitees, but were hidden (perhaps deliberately) by couches and cupboards whenever he visited for inspections or repairs; that the full 104 damage is only visible now the premises are empty: and that Alia should forfeit the entire $5,000 bond to cover (part of) the cost of renovating the walls completely before re-sale. 108 Alia in turn tells the RTDC that “pretty much all that damage to the walls was there when I first moved in, six years ago. Yes, I did sign the condition report saying the damage was ‘minor’ – well, it wasn’t structural, it was less 112 than some places I’d lived in, and I was happy just to have a roof over my head: I didn’t feel like making trouble.” LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] Question 1: 116 At the hearing before Commissioner Gumm, Alia seeks to present, as evidence, prints of three photographs she took of Luka at age 9, shortly they first moved in. The kitchen and lounge room walls, visible in the background behind 120 Luka, show dark spots that Alia claims are pre-existing holes. The photographs were taken using an old-style instant camera (chemical, not electronic) with self- developing film (so there are no negatives, and the prints 124 are the only copy in existence). However, Commissioner Gumm refuses to look at these photographs, citing section 777 of the RTDC Act, which reads: “The Commission may inform itself of facts in any 128 manner that the Commissioner hearing the dispute may consider just and appropriate.” He tells Alia that the RTDC as a whole has adopted a policy that “only in extremely unusual circumstances” will it accept photographs that are 132 not date-stamped. LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] Alia replies: “Date-stamps? Pfffft. That’s not very secure, you know? I can re-set my camera phone right now to take a selfie of you and me in the year 3000, if you want. Surely 136 three pictures of Luka, taken six years ago, are much harder to fake? This is him, here, with me today, in this court… this room.” Commissioner Gumm replies: “No, we don’t want any 140 technological demonstrations, please. That would be far too tedious and would take up too much of this Commission’s time. We have a firm policy, and I see no reason to make individual exceptions from it just to satisfy your demands.” 144 Commissioner Gumm makes a ruling based on the Condition Report as the sole material before the Commission, since “it was freely signed by both parties.” He orders that Alia forfeit the entire bond to Carl as claimed. 148 Does Alia have any legal grounds to challenge this decision in court? LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] Question 2: (Assume the facts given in Question 1, whether or not you 152 chose to answer that question). Alia has exercised her statutory right to appeal the decision to the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), under s999 of the RTDC Act. 156 The AAT has considered her appeal but rejected it, noting (3-0) in its ruling that: 160 164 168 172 LAW00117 Administrative Law (session 2, 2020) [Pages are left un-numbered on purpose – please cite "facts" by line numbers instead] 176 180 184 188 192 196 200 Alia snorts in derision as she reads this judgment and tells you: “If only they’d asked me, I could have shown them literally two or three hundred photos of Luka standing