Eastman v Besanko

In the matter of Eastman v Besanko, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the respondent's refusal to issue an order for an inquiry into a past conviction. The case was heard and determined by the court. The plaintiff argued that the respondent's decision to not issue an order for inquiry into the conviction affected his legal rights. The central issue before the court was whether the refusal to issue an order for inquiry constituted a decision made under an enactment and, if so, whether it was Wednesbury unreasonable.

The court first considered whether the decision to refuse to issue an order for inquiry into the plaintiff's conviction was a decision made under an enactment. The court found that there was no right to the issue of an order both before and after the decision was made. Consequently, the decision was not made under an enactment and therefore not subject to judicial review. The court also considered whether the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, but found that the decision was based on findings or inferences that were supported by some probative material or logical grounds. Accordingly, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Given that the court found the decision was not made under an enactment, it dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the intervenor. This decision clarifies the scope of judicial review in cases where an administrative decision does not involve a statutory right and the principles for assessing the reasonableness of such decisions.