Among the many constitutional developments of the past century or so, one of the most significant has been the creation and proliferation of institutions that perform functions similar to those performed by courts but which are considered to be, and in some ways are, different and distinct from courts as traditionally conceived. In much of the common law world, such institutions are called 'administrative tribunals'. Their main function is to adjudicate disputes between citizens and the state by reviewing decisions of government agencies - a function also performed by courts in 'judicial review' proceedings and appeals. Although tribunals in aggregate adjudicate many more such disputes than courts, tribunals and their role as dispensers of 'administrative justice' receive relatively little scholarly attention.This wide-ranging book-length treatment of the subject compares tribunals in three major jurisdictions: Australia the UK and the US. It analyses and 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.

This new book, by one of the world's leading administrative law experts, is the first modern work to examine administrative tribunals in all their aspects. Commencing with a history of these tribunals, the book goes on to examine in detail the different models employed in the UK, US, Australia and France. Further chapters review the wide range of form, function and purpose characterising tribunals in these jurisdictions. A final chapter offers conclusions and an assessment of their future role and significance.

1 Survey1.1 The Project1.2 Administrative Tribunals and Administrative Adjudication1.2.1 The AAT is not a court1.2.2 The AAT reviews decisions1.2.3 The AAT's jurisdiction1.3 The Plan of the Book1.4 Conclusion2 History2.1 Introduction2.2 1066 to 18002.3 19th and 20th Centuries2.3.1 The UK2.3.2 The US2.3.3 Australia2.4 Conclusion3 Models3.1 The UK Model3.2 The US Model3.3 The Australian Model3.4 The French Model3.5 Conclusion4 Form4.1 Membership, Appointments and Composition4.1.1 Membership4.1.1.1 Expertise and Specialisation4.1.1.2 The US4.1.1.3 The UK4.1.1.4 Australia4.1.1.5 The Tasks of Non-court Administrative Adjudicators4.1.2 Appointment Processes4.1.3 Composition4.2 Separation and Independence4.2.1 The UK4.2.2 Australia4.2.3 The US4.3 Structure and Systematisation4.3.1 Jurisdictional Specialisation4.3.1.1 Patterns of Specialisation4.3.1.2 The Theory of Specialisation and Amalgamation4.3.2 Supervision and Accountability4.3.2.1 Hierarchical Supervision4.3.2.2 External Supervision4.4 Conclusion5 Function5.1 Introduction5.2 Categorising Governance Functions: the Legacy of Montesquieu5.3 Merits Review5.3.1 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 Review5.4 Merits Review and Judicial Review5.5 The 'Normative Function' of Merits Review and the AAT5.6 Merits Review Outside the AAT5.7 The Nature of Tribunal Review in Comparator Jurisdictions5.7.1 The UK5.7.2 The US5.8 Conclusion6 Purpose6.1 What is Administrative Justice?6.2 A Formula for Administrative Justice in Tribunals?6.3 Jurisdiction6.4 Standing6.5 Processes6.5.1 The Paradigm Mode of Decision-Making6.5.1.1 The Reviewer6.5.1.2 The Respondent6.5.2 Alternatives to the Paradigm Mode6.6 Resources6.7 Conclusion7 Landscape7.1 The Accountability 'Sector'7.2 Tribunals and Ombudsmen7.3 Tribunals and Internal Review7.4 Tribunals and Courts7.4.1 Australia7.4.2 The US7.4.3 The UK7.4.4 Re-conceiving the Relationship Between Courts andTribunals7.5 Tribunals and ADR/PDR7.6 Conclusion