This type of materiality is conceptually different from the first and second types. As Nettle J. noted in Hossain, an error of law may be judicial and substantial, but the question of the consequences arising from this combination of factors is another question. Consider, for example, a situation: in the United States, companies must comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) adopted by the Securities Exchange Committee (SEC) when preparing financial statements. Most U.S. companies follow the 5% materiality rule, which states that erroneous values of 5% above the underlying assets (e.g., gross profit, net profit, etc.) are important. Clearly, this former type of materiality is much less popular in legal systems where the distinction between miscarriages of justice and non-judicial errors has been abolished (entirely in New Zealand (Peters v Davison [1999] 2 NZLR 164) and for all practical purposes in England (R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663, paragraphs 18 and 39). But it maintains a stubborn position in cases involving the distinction between duty and register, insofar as the question in such cases will always be whether „in an authentic interpretation, failure to comply with the condition of validity of the act is fatal” (Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law 11th ed. (2014), pp. 183-184). As Soneji put it, „the focus should be on the consequences of non-compliance and raise the question of whether Parliament can be assumed to have meant total invalidity” (paragraph 23 after Lord Steyn). Normally, a law that implicitly requires that this or any other condition be complied with in the course of a decision-making process should not be interpreted as precluding any decision that might be made in violation of that condition of res judicata and effects.

As a general rule, the law should be interpreted as containing a materiality threshold in the event of non-compliance. First, materiality can be used to indicate whether an error is serious enough to be considered competent. The fact is that not all errors are equal: some will have more serious consequences than others, resulting in the invalidity of the decision under review; Some errors will be so insignificant that it would not be appropriate to invalidate the decision under review. As Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ. stated in their joint judgment in Hossain, `an error of jurisdiction reflects not only the existence of an error but also its gravity` (emphasis added: Nettle and Gordon JJ. had two particular concerns. First, they doubt the applicability of the second type of materiality to Australia, since it is a creature known only to English judicial law, which has more or less eliminated the distinction between jurisdictional errors and is now very different from Australian administrative law (paragraph 91). However, as I have shown, the second type of materiality can also be perceived in Ireland and other Commonwealth systems. Second, they considered that it was not appropriate to place the burden of proof of materiality on the applicant (paragraphs 93-95). I accept that, as regards the third type of materiality, the burden of proof should be on the decision-maker `to demonstrate that the remedy would be unnecessary in the applicant`s circumstances` (paragraph 93). But, as I mentioned earlier, proving a causal link between the error and the result is part of the case that an applicant for judicial review must present, as the courts of the common law world have recognized. This is often difficult, especially in cases of abuse of authority (see, for example, CREEDNZ Inc.

v. Governor-General [1981] 1 NZLR 172; R (Bancoult) v Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary (No. 3) [2018] 1 WLR 973), but is nevertheless an established feature of the common law of judicial review of administrative acts. A material weakness occurs when one or more of an entity`s internal controls – activities, rules and processes aimed at preventing material irregularities in the financial statements and improving operational efficiency – are ineffective. If a failure of the system of internal control is a material weakness, it can result in material misstatement in an entity`s financial statements. This would render the Company`s financial statement data unreliable and ineffective in assessing the Company`s financial health and determining the appropriate share price of the Company. Third, substantiality can be used to refer to judges` discretion to deny appeals. In situations where there is an error found to be competent (including a breach of legislation considered mandatory) and there is a causal link between the error and the outcome, the court retains the discretion to deny an appeal. And this discretion could be exercised in situations where the alleged error was irrelevant, in the sense that the decision-maker would inevitably have reached the same conclusion: for example, if an applicant successfully demonstrates that an irrelevant factor was considered by an administrative decision-maker, he or she must also show that the factor had a „substantial” influence on the decision (R. v.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Cromer Ring Mill [1982] 3 All ER 761, p.