v0.1

Consideration Matrix

Mapping what must be considered against what was actually considered

GlassCase Consideration Matrix v0.1 is a diagnostic tool for Australian administrative law. It synthesises established principles on mandatory considerations, discretionary weighting, and jurisdictional error. The matrix applies wherever validity depends on consideration of specified matters (FOI, migration, licensing, disciplinary regimes). Placement reflects legal characterisation, not subjective belief.

WHERE THIS FITS

Use it to map mandatory versus discretionary considerations, diagnose jurisdictional error (failure to consider mandatory matters), and structure review grounds for internal review or tribunal appeals.

2×2 Matrix

Mandatory consideration

Discretionary consideration

Jurisdictional error

No duty to consider

Doctrinal basis (non-exhaustive)

Show ▼

Lawful Compliance

Statutory criteria; jurisdictional facts; procedural fairness requirements. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 (mandatory relevant considerations identified from statute's subject matter, scope and purpose).

Lawful Discretion

Weighting and proportionality within bounds of legal reasonableness. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 (discretion must have “evident and intelligible justification”; decision within bounds cannot be impugned on weight alone).

Jurisdictional Error

Failure to take into account a consideration the decision-maker was bound to consider. ADJR Act s 5(1)(e), s 5(2)(b); Peko-Wallsend at CLR 39–40 (Mason J). Materiality may be required: a failure is not jurisdictional if “so insignificant that failure to consider it could not have materially affected the decision.”

No Duty to Consider

No general common law duty to consider irrelevant matters or give reasons for not considering them. Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 (no duty to give reasons absent statutory requirement or exceptional circumstances); Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 (standard of reasons depends on statutory context). Prohibited considerations under s 11B(4) FOI Act must not be taken into account.

Note: Inferred consideration

Consideration may be inferred from context even where reasons do not explicitly address a matter. Silence in reasons may still reveal failure to consider a relevant matter: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [69], [82]–[91] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). The question is whether the matter was in fact considered, not merely mentioned.

Worked example: Licensing decision

A statute requires the decision-maker to consider an applicant's criminal history before granting a licence. The decision-maker approves the application without referencing the history in reasons.

Criminal history (statutory requirement) — not mentioned in reasons Jurisdictional error

Application fee paid (mandatory procedural step) — verified Lawful compliance

Weight given to minor 10-year-old offence — low weight assigned Lawful discretion

Applicant's political donations — not considered No duty

What this matrix does not do

Determine the merits of a decision
Assess whether the weight given was correct
Replace statutory interpretation or legal advice
Identify all considerations (that requires reading the empowering statute)

How to Use This Matrix

Audit decisions: Map considerations from reasons documents or decision records against the matrix to identify structural issues—mandatory matters not addressed, irrelevant matters relied upon, or weighting applied where none was permitted.
Review preparation: Use the matrix to frame grounds for internal review or tribunal appeals. The bottom-left quadrant (jurisdictional error) identifies reviewable failures under ADJR Act s 5(1)(e) and s 5(2)(b).
Training and education: Teach decision-makers and law students how to distinguish mandatory from discretionary considerations and recognise when silence in reasons may indicate jurisdictional error.

This matrix is a diagnostic tool, not a substitute for reading the empowering statute or obtaining legal advice. It applies across administrative regimes wherever validity depends on proper consideration of specified matters.

Related Tools

FOI Redaction Taxonomy — Practical coding scheme for analysing FOI redactions across Australian jurisdictions.
Use & Privacy — How GlassCase works, data practices, and legal information.

Version History

v0.1 (December 2025): Initial release. Synthesises Peko-Wallsend, Li, and related authorities into a 2×2 diagnostic framework.

How to cite (APA 7): GlassCase. (2025, December). Consideration Matrix (Version 0.1). https://glasscase.org/consideration-matrix.html

Licence: CC BY 4.0. Not legal advice.