Jurisdictional fact

Jurisdictional fact are facts which must objectively exist before a statutory power can be exercised by a decision-maker. They are created by and operate in the context of government authority produced by statute and are linked to the legal concept of jurisdiction.^[1] A number of scholars have tried, with limited success, to categorise them.^[2][3][4]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the seminal definition is the English law case of Anisminic.^[5]

Some countriesm, like Singapore, India and Canada that have written constitutions, can be constrained in their definition of "jurisdictional facts" and due to the restraints in their constitutions.^{[6][failed verification]}

Australia

In Australia the High Court has been reticent to define jurisdictional facts^[7] finding that "The principles as to how one determines whether something is a jurisdictional fact are settled but necessarily imprecise. That must be so." and that "to define Jurisdictional fact is neither necessary nor desirable."^[8] Despite this, Australian courts have made efforts to define the concept of jurisdictional fact, including the following:

• "A condition of jurisdiction".^[9]
• "A preliminary question on the answer to which … jurisdiction depends".^[10]
• An "event or requirement" constituting "an essential condition of the existence of jurisdiction".^[11] ...."a condition of jurisdiction", without which a tribunal can not act.
• But the leading definition in Australia is the "criterion, satisfaction of which enlivens the power of the decision-maker" found in Enfield.^[12]

These criteria of jurisdiction are created by and operate through statute,^[13] and may be subjective,^[14] or objective in nature and may also be a complex of interactions.^[15][16] but they must not be illogical,^[14] or capricious and must be actual.^[17]

Singapore

In Singapore the concept is called "precedent fact errors".

See also

• Jurisdictional error