The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. Ideally, these charges ought to have been divided equally among all the owners benefited, but this charge had been thrown on one adjacent owner. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. (2) Whether the measure in question was in the circumstances excessively restrictive or inflicted an unnecessary burden on affected persons? Prima facie, it may seem irrelevant to ask the obvious question: Could it have possibly been the intention of the Parliament that any body should behave unreasonably? The Court held that it could not intervene because it can only do so where the decision maker has gone beyond their legal powers. This power is however, fettered by restraints. They are well understood. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. *You can also browse our support articles here >. This case therefore shows that a Court can only intervene in very limited circumstances. In this particular case, whether or not the Court thought the condition was fair or the best outcome was irrelevant – it is only relevant whether it was lawful, and it was. The Court held that in considering whether an authority having so unlimited power has acted unreasonably, the court is only entitled to investigate the action of the authority with a view to seeing if it has taken into account any matters that ought not to be or disregarded matters that ought to be taken into account. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. The term “Wednesbury unreasonableness” is used to describe the third limb, of being so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have decided that way. The way in which such challenge is made is relevant; and in this respect, the Wednesbury principle is understood with respect to grounds of judicial review of administrative action. You can view samples of our professional work here. The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it. They allowed cinemas subject to the condition. The explanation of the Master of the Rolls in the first sentence of the cited passage requires clarification. in Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch 66, 90, 91 gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. Developments in the principle of unreasonableness in the 20th century, 1905 – Westminster Corporation v. L and NW Railway [13] – The issue was about the discretion of a local authority to erect certain public conveniences, and it was opined by Lord MacNaghten in this case that such a body vested with discretion should take care so as to keep within the limits of the authority committed to it, and in the exercise of its discretion must act in good faith, and reasonably. Conversely, if the nature of the subject-matter and the general interpretation of the Act make it clear that certain matters would not be germane to the matter in question, the authority must disregard those irrelevant, collateral matters… I am not sure myself whether the permissible grounds of attack cannot be defined under a single head. Very often, there are cases wherein there is more than one ground of challenge, and this is because the facts of any case are likely to introduce several levels of complexity. Grounds of review and the location of the Wednesbury principle. The plaintiffs were the owners and licensees of the Gaumont Cinema, Wednesbury, Staffordshire. Copyright 2019 - SimpleStudying is a trading name of SimpleStudying Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. They can only interfere with an act of executive authority if it be shown that the authority has contravened the law. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The discretion exercised by the Wednesbury Corporation, The Wednesbury Corporation granted the license to the plaintiffs on the condition that no children under 15 years, whether accompanied by an adult or not, should be admitted to Sunday performances. The Wednesbury case did not arise in a vacuum, and the trend in precedents contributed greatly to the judgment which was delivered, and which ultimately shaped principles of unreasonableness. This Wednesbury test has been the major tool used by the Courts to control discretionary decisions. The third limb – that the decision was “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority” [229] has become known as. The Wednesbury corporation, in this case, was an authority which had: The power to grant licences in any area for cinematograph performances under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, and, The power to allow a licensed place to be open and used on Sundays, “subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose.”. No child under the age of 15 was to be admitted whether accompanied by an adult or not. It has been perhaps a little confusing to find a series of grounds set out. According to law, they had the power to levy this charge in their discretion, but this charge was disallowed as inequitable. (Per Lord Greene MR), Your email address will not be published. Permission was granted, but only provided that no children under the age of 15 was admitted. Critical to the evaluation of the Wednesbury principle [2] is an appraisal of where it can be located within the scheme of administrative law, and its articulation in a different category of challenge to administrative action. When discretion of this kind is granted the law recognizes certain principles upon which that discretion must be exercised, but within the four corners of those principles the discretion, in my opinion, is an absolute one and cannot be questioned in any court of law. They are principles which the court looks to in considering any question of discretion of this kind. However, the use of the term “unreasonableness” is not specific enough. It has been observed that numerous decisions have unreasonableness as a common factor. In other words, there was no connection between the health and and welfare of young children, and the use of the premise for holding exhibitions. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. Warrington L.J. And I think that the day will come when it will be more widely recognized that the Wednesbury case was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, in so far as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. For discretion is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to their wills and private affections…”. The condition was that ‘Children under fourteen years of age shall not be allowed to enter into or be in the licensed premises after the hour of 9 p.m. . A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223). Does it refer to outrageous behaviour, or a duty of the public body to act reasonably? The principle of proportionality envisages that a public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between his particular goals and the means he employees to achieve those goals, so that his action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent to preserve public interest. Lord. Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. “When discretion of this kind is granted the law recognises certain principles upon which that discretion has been exercised, but within the four corners of those principles the discretion is an absolute one and cannot be questioned in any court of law. that no child under the age of sixteen years should be admitted to the cinematograph theatre. 1925 – Roberts v Hopwood [15] – Acting in the exercise of his discretion, the district auditor had disallowed what in his opinion were “over generous” wages paid by the Borough Council of Poplar to their employees under an Act which empowered them to pay such wages as they “may think fit.” The House of Lords was of the opinion that the Borough need not have paid more than what was reasonable. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., Lord Greene, M.R. He also described the various grounds of challenge which went into the legality of public body’s actions. It is not to be assumed prima facie that responsible bodies like the local authority in this case will exceed their powers; but the court, whenever it is alleged that the local authority have contravened the law, must not substitute itself for that authority. He mainly referred to three grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. This case cites: Cited – Theatre de Luxe (Halifax) LD v Gledhill KBD 1915 ([1915] 2 KB 49) The company appealed a condition which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema.