R v Portus; Ex parte

The case of *R v Portus; Ex parte* concerned an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the applicant, Mr. Portus, against the respondent, the Commonwealth Director-General of Social Services. The dispute arose from the Director-General's decision to refuse to grant the applicant an invalid pension under the *Social Services Act 1947* (Cth). The applicant sought to challenge the validity of the Director-General's decision, alleging it was made without proper consideration of the evidence and was therefore beyond his power.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the Director-General had acted within his statutory authority when refusing the invalid pension. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Director-General had failed to exercise his discretion according to law, thereby rendering his decision amenable to prohibition. This involved an examination of the nature of the discretion conferred by the *Social Services Act* and the procedural requirements for its lawful exercise.

The Court held that the Director-General's discretion was not unfettered and required him to consider all relevant evidence before making a determination. In this instance, the evidence suggested that the Director-General had made his decision based on a predetermined view rather than a genuine assessment of the applicant's circumstances. The Court applied the principle that administrative discretions must be exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they are conferred, and that a failure to consider relevant material or an irrelevant consideration can vitiate a decision. Consequently, the Court found that the Director-General had failed to exercise his power according to law.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, quashing the Director-General's decision to refuse the invalid pension.