Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide",^[1][2] and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice.^[3]

In Australia, the definition of jurisdictional error can be found in High Court judgements.

Hayne J has defined jurisdictional error in the following terms:

The difficulty of drawing a bright line between jurisdictional error and error in the exercise of jurisdiction should not be permitted, however, to obscure the difference that is illustrated by considering clear cases of each species of error. There is a jurisdictional error if the decision maker makes a decision outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred on him or her, or does something which he or she lacks power to do. By contrast, incorrectly deciding something which the decision maker is authorised to decide is an error within jurisdiction.^[4]

A more specific definition of Jurisdictional error is defined as follows:

Jurisdictional error is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers.^[5]

The power of superior courts to respond to jurisdictional error by issuing the prerogative writs is entrenched in Australia's constitution:

[T]he jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution cannot be removed by or under a law made by the Parliament. Specifically, the jurisdiction to grant s 75(v) relief where there has been jurisdictional error by an officer of the Commonwealth cannot be removed.^[6][7]

However, the term has been subject to criticism. In 2008, Kirby J held:

The classification is conclusory. It is very difficult to define and to apply. In recent years it has been substantially discarded by English legal doctrine. Jurisdictional error is nearly impossible to explain to lay people even though the Constitution (including the central provisions in s 75(v)) belongs to them. Most non-lawyers would regard it as a lawyer's fancy.^[8]

Canadian administrative law has a similar set of concepts called substantive review which incorporates most of the criteria of jurisdictional error

In Singapore they are known as "precedent fact errors" but work effectively like the United Kingdom jurisprudence.^[13]

Judicial review in Hong Kong is effectively the English system and is enshrined in Article 35 of the constitution.

In the UK, the House of Lords has held they are "... an incorrect interpretation of a statutory phrase by the ... authorities [that] amounted to an error of law that was judicially reviewable".^[14]

As with Canada, judicial review in Scotland does not use the term but holds many of the concepts in their judicial review system.^[15]

The term jurisdictional error is not used in:

• Malaysia
• New Zealand
• United States of America