Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation


Case law used to justify the following of practice/policy rather than the law when making a decision.

The SSAT uses Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) as a precedent for following the policy of an agency rather than the law in making a decision.

Is there anyone out there that knows just how watertight this argument is?
Hey HappyDaze,

All I could find on the subject was it suggests as you say, they suggest following the policies of an agency, it seems to a cop out or generic response if they do not want to make a decision that may question policies of a specific department.

This is not my area of expertise I'm only responding because no-one else has.

Has any one else received decisions quoting Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979).

Is it a common excuse ????
D4E - Thanks for your reply.

The SSAT states that their decision should be the most correct or preferable decision and also take into consideration policy as well as the law. They cite Drake etc… as their precedence.

I have done a fair bit of Googling and cannot seem to get a copy of the case. There are plenty of references to it from the AAT.

Does anyone know of a case where Drake was defeated?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets