(15) "The licensing decision is part administration, part adjudication." How do the courts resolve such hybrid acts?

The classification's premise: the administration acts in three distinct modes — making general rules, deciding disputes, and executing policy — and each mode carries its own discipline: The control's tailoring: rule-making demands publication and parliamentary scrutiny (Unit 4); adjudication demands natural justice (Unit 5); administration proper demands hierarchy and reasonableness (Unit 7) — you cannot know which discipline applies until you classify the act; The citizen's protection: the rights' identification follows the function's identification (a hearing right attaches to adjudicative acts; a consultation expectation to rule-making); The constitutional analysis: the separation's working test (Unit 2) — which organ, which function, which check; The remedy's selection: the writ's choice depends on the act's character (certiorari for the adjudicative error; mandamus for the administrative inaction). The classification's difficulty (the modern truth): the boundaries blur — the licensing decision is part administration (the policy), part adjudication (the hearing); the rule-making has executive elements (the policy choice). The courts classify by the act's DOMINANT character: does the act decide rights and obligations after hearing both sides (judicial/quasi-judicial), or does it make general policy (legislative), or does it execute (administrative)?