Reconsideration of administrative decisions The decision of Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic.
(1990) 21 FCR 193 is the central thread of this thesis. Broadly, the subject matter of this thesis is concerned with those circumstances when an administrative decision maker does not have the capacity to change the decision. This broad subject matter involves the consideration of two separate questions: (i) whether louis vuitton neverfull limited edition an administrative decision maker can, in the exercise of statutory powers, express or implied, reopen an earlier decision either with or without the request of a person affected by that decision; and (ii) whether or not an administrative decision maker can be estopped from reopening the earlier louis vuitton bracelet pink decision made in the exercise of the decision maker's statutory, common law or prerogative powers. On the one hand, the sovereign and proprietary distinction louis vuitton alma bag youtube purports to allow estoppel to be applied against an administrative decision maker in the course of making louis vuitton shoes ioffer proprietary (or commercial), but not sovereign (or governmental) decisions.
On the other hand, the policy and operational distinction purports to allow estoppel to apply, so long as there is no issue of ultra vires or illegality, against an administrative decisionmaker in the course of making an operational decision that gives effect to or implements decisions made in the exercise of a particular government policy. The general principle that estoppel cannot operate to sanction something otherwise prohibited by statute or prevent, hinder or fetter the proper performance or exercise of a statutory power, duty or discretion is sufficient to dispose of any case of estoppel in this particular context. Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade  1 QB 643 is the only case on this topic.
Prev: louis vuitton agenda ebay
Next: louis vuitton alma noir magnetique