Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas

G. L. Peiris

doi:10.1017/S0008197300113613

Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009

G. L. Peiris

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

It is an essential aspect of the English legal tradition in public law that judicial review should be based upon procedural standards. Lord Brightman has recently insisted that judicial review involves simply an appraisal of the manner in which an administrative decision is made. However, judicial attitudes during the last three years indicate a changing philosophy which appears to admit of greater scope for substantive review. The principle which is referred to succinctly in modern law as Wednesbury unreasonableness has proved, in the hands of some contemporary judges, a uniquely effective instrument for the exercise of this extended jurisdiction. The central problem posed by recent developments relates to the danger of a “surrogate political process” which may erode the foundations of legislative supremacy and political responsibility. Unbridled judicial review, in accordance with some emerging approaches, has basic implications for the future of the relationship between the administration and the courts.

Type: Articles
Information: The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 53 - 82

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300113613 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 53 note 1} See, for a general discussion, Winkler, J., “The Political Economy of Administrative Discretion” in Adler, and Asquith, (eds.) Discretion and Welfare (1981)Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 2} Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1155 at p. 1174. (H.L.)

^{page 53 note 3} See n.11, infra.

^{page 53 note 4} Stewart, R. B. “Reformation of Administrative Law” (1975) 88 Harv. L. R. 1669Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 5} Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law (5th ed., 1982), p. 362Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 6} See Hutchinson, A. C., “The Rise and Ruse of Administrative Law and Scholarship” (1985) 48 M.L.R. 193: cf.Google ScholarUnger, R. M., “The Critical Legal Studies Movement” (1983) 96 Harv. L.Rev. 561Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 7} Fiss, O., “Objectivity and Interpretation” (1982) Stan. L.Rev. 739 at p. 745Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 8} See, e. g., R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p. Greater London Council [1985] 3 W.L.R. 574.

^{page 54 note 9} R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] A.C. 240 at pp. 250–251, per Scarman, Lord: Re Westminster City Council [1986] 2 W.L.R. 807 at p. 830Google Scholar, per Templeman, Lord; R. v. Secretary of State for Social Services, ex p. Association of Metropolitan Authorities [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1 at p. 6Google Scholar, per Webster J.

^{page 54 note 10} R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. Preston [1985] A.C. 835: Wheeler v. Leicester City Council [1985]A.C. 1054: Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] A.C. 112.

^{page 54 note 11} [1948] 1 K.B. 223.

^{page 54 note 12} At p. 229.

^{page 55 note 13} Ibid.

^{page 55 note 14} This was the disingenuous device suggested by Viscount Radcliffe in Edwards v. Bairstow (1956) AC. 14 (H.L.)

^{page 55 note 15} Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374 at p. 411 (H.L.)

^{page 55 note 16} Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley B.C. [1971] A.C. 508 at p. 530, per Lord Reid (H.L.)

^{page 55 note 17} A gratuitous invasion of private rights, insufficiently linked with a legitimate planning objective, may be assailed on this ground: Mixnam's Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey U.D.C. [1965] A.C. 735: Minister of Housing and Local Government v. Hartnell [1965] A.C. 1134.

^{page 55 note 18} Roberts v. Hopwood [1925] A.C. 578 at p. 606–607, per Lord Sumner (H.L.).

^{page 56 note 19} See n.15, supra.

^{page 56 note 20} See, for example, Diplock, L.J. in Luby v. Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation [1964] 2 Q.B. 64 at pp. 75–76 (C.A.)Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 21} Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan B. C. [1977] A.C. 1014, at pp. 1074–1075 per Lord Russell of Killowen (H.L.).

^{page 56 note 22} With regard to degrees of unreasonableness, see National Assistance Board v. Wilkinson [1952] 2 Q.B. 648.

^{page 56 note 23} See the Tameside case, cited at n.21 supra, at p. 1025 per Lord Denning M.R. (C. A.).

^{page 56 note 24} Re W. (An Infant) [1911] A.C. 682 at p. 700, per Lord Hail sham of St. Marlboro L.C. (H.L.).

^{page 56 note 25} Clinch v. I.R.C. [1974] 1 Q.B. 76 at p. 61, per Backer J.

^{page 56 note 26} Emeralds v. Glasgow Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R. 457 at p. 463.

^{page 56 note 27} Edinburgh v. Inglis [1919] A.C. 606.

^{page 56 note 28} R. v. Barnet and Camden Rent Tribunal, ex p. Frey Investments Ltd. [1972] 2 Q.B. 342.

^{page 56 note 29} Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66 at p. 91, per Warrington L.J.

^{page 56 note 30} Smith v. East Elloe R.D.C. [1956] A.C. 736 at p. 763, per Lord Reid (H.L.).

^{page 56 note 31} Secretary of State for Employment v. Associated Society for Locomotive Engineers and Firemen [1972] 2 Q.B. 455 at p. 511, per Roskill L.J. (C.A.).

^{page 56 note 32} See n.30, supra.

^{page 56 note 33} Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan B.C. [1977] A.C. 1014.

^{page 57 note 34} Ibid, at p. 1061, per Viscount Dilhorne.

^{page 57 note 35} Ibid., at p. 1026, per Lord Denning M.R. (C.A.).

^{page 57 note 36} Ibid., at p. 1074, per Lord Russell.

^{page 57 note 37} Ibid., at p. 1035, per Geoffrey Lane L.J. (C.A.).

^{page 57 note 38} [1985] I.R.L.R. 258 (C.A.).

^{page 58 note 39} Ibid., at p. 262.

^{page 58 note 40} Ibid; cf. Donaldson M.R. at p. 260.

^{page 58 note 41} Employment Protection Act, 1975.

^{page 58 note 42} S.l(2).

^{page 58 note 43} [1981] A.C. 424.

^{page 58 note 44} Employment Protection Act 1975, S.12(4).

^{page 59 note 45} Both objectives were identified as statutory imperatives: see s.4.

^{page 59 note 46} [1981] A.C. 424 at pp. 442, 445.

^{page 59 note 47} [1961] A.C. 636.

^{page 59 note 48} Town and Country Planning Act 1947, s.14.

^{page 60 note 49} Id., s.119(l).

^{page 60 note 50} [1961] A.C. 636 at p. 675.

^{page 60 note 51} Ibid.

^{page 60 note 52} Hoveringham Gravels Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1975] 1 Q.B. 754 at p. 764. per Orr L.J.; cf. at p. 771, per Scarman L.J. (C.A.).

^{page 61 note 53} Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley B.C. [1971] A.C. 508 at p. 530 per Lord Reid (H.L.).

^{page 61 note 54} Housing Act 1957, s.111(3).

^{page 61 note 55} Belcher v. Reading Corporation [1950] Ch. 380.

^{page 61 note 56} See, for an emphatic expression of this view, J., Diplock L. in Luby v. Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation [1964] 2 Q.B. 64 at pp. 75–76Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 57} Smith v. Cardiff Corporation (No. 2) [1955] Ch. 159; Summerfield v. Hampstead B.C. [1957] 1 W.L.R. 167.

^{page 62 note 58} [1983] 1 A.C. 768 (H.L.).

^{page 62 note 59} See Transport (London) Act 1969, s.3, which refers to “any purpose.”

^{page 62 note 60} [1983] 1 A.C. 768 at pp. 827–829.

^{page 62 note 61} Ibid., at pp. 839–840.

^{page 62 note 62} Ibid.

^{page 63 note 63} Ibid., at p. 830, per Lord Diplock.

^{page 63 note 64} Ibid., at p. 839, per Lord Scarman.

^{page 63 note 65} Ibid., at p. 831, per Lord Keith of Kinkel.

^{page 63 note 66} Transport (London) Act 1969, s.7(3).

^{page 63 note 67} Transport (London) Act 1969, see particularly ss.1–7 and 11.

^{page 64 note 68} CREEDNZ Inc. v. Governor-General [1981] 1 N.Z.L.R. 172 at p.198 per Richardson J. (C.A. of N.Z.).

^{page 64 note 69} Fawcett Properties Ltd. v. Buckingham C.C. [1961] A.C. 636 at 685, per Lord Jenkins (H.L.).

^{page 64 note 70} [1983] 1 A.C. 768 at p. 853.

^{page 64 note 71} Ibid., at p. 815.

^{page 64 note 72} Roberts v. Hopwood [1925] A.C. 578 at p. 596: cf. Lord Sumner at p. 607 and Lord Wrenbury at p. 613.

^{page 64 note 73} See n.21, supra.

^{page 64 note 74} [1925] A.C. 578.

^{page 65 note 75} Metropolis Management Act 1855, s.62.

^{page 65 note 76} [1925] A.C. 578 at p. 613.

^{page 65 note 77} Ibid., at p. 590, per Lord Buekmaster.

^{page 65 note 78} Ibid., at p. 596, per Lord Atkinson.

^{page 65 note 79} Ibid., at p. 595, per Lord Atkinson.

^{page 65 note 80} [1955] Ch. 210.

^{page 65 note 81} Ibid., at p. 236.

^{page 66 note 82} [1983] 1 A.C. 768 at pp. 831–832, per Lord Keith of Kinkel.

^{page 66 note 83} Dormer v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation [1940] 2 K.B. 204 at p. 217.

^{page 66 note 84} Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway [1905] A.C. 426 at p. 433, per Lord Macnaghten.

^{page 66 note 85} Point of Ayr Collieries Ltd. v. Lloyd George [1943] 2 All E.R. 546 at p. 547, per Lord Greene M.R.; cf. Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All E.R. 560 at p. 564, per Lord Greene M.R.

^{page 66 note 86} In re Findlay [1985] A.C. 318 at p. 338 (H.L.).

^{page 67 note 87} Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374 at p. 415, per Lord Roskill (H.L.).

^{page 67 note 88} O'Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237 (H.L.).

^{page 67 note 89} Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 318 at pp. 408–409, per Lord Diplock (H.L.)

^{page 67 note 90} Ibid.

^{page 67 note 91} [1985] A.C. 318 at pp. 400–401.

^{page 67 note 92} [1983] 2 A.C. 629.

^{page 68 note 93} [1986] Q.B. 556.

^{page 68 note 94} S.49.

^{page 68 note 95} [1986] Q.B. 556 at p. 587.

^{page 69 note 96} [1985] A.C. 318.

^{page 69 note 97} Criminal Justice Act 1967. s.59(3)(c).

^{page 69 note 98} [1985] A.C. 318 at pp. 333–334. per Lord Scarman.

^{page 69 note 99} Ibid.

^{page 70 note 1} R. v. Secretary of State for Social Services, ex p. Association of Metropolitan Authorities [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1.

^{page 70 note 2} Re Westminster City Council [1986] 2 W.L.R. 807 at pp. 822–823, per Lord Bridge.

^{page 70 note 3} [1985] A.C. 835 (H.L.).

^{page 70 note 4} Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s.460.

^{page 71 note 5} [1985] A.C. 840 at pp. 844–846.

^{page 71 note 6} See, on this point, R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1982] A.C. 617 at p. 652. per Lord Scarman (H.L.).

^{page 71 note 7} [1985] A.C. 835 at pp. 866–867.

^{page 71 note 8} Ibid., at pp. 866–867.

^{page 71 note 9} Ibid., at p. 867.

^{page 72 note 10} ibid.

^{page 72 note 11} CREEDNZ Inc. v. Governor-General [1981] 1 N.Z.L.R. 172 at p. 183. per Cooke J. (C.A. of N.Z.).

^{page 72 note 12} Ashby v. Minister of Immigration [1981] 1 N.Z.L.R. 222 at p. 224, per Cooke J. (C.A. of N.Z.).

^{page 73 note 13} Immigration Act 1964, s.14 (N.Z.).

^{page 73 note 14} See Ashby v. Minister of Immigration, n.12, supra at p. 231, per Richardson J.

^{page 73 note 15} Saloman v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1967] 2 Q.B. 116at p. 143, per Diplock L.J.: cf. Post Office v. Estuary Radio Ltd. [1968] 2 Q.B. 740.

^{page 73 note 16} Ahmad v. Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 Q.B. 36 at p. 48.

^{page 73 note 17} Cmnd. 8969 (1953).

^{page 73 note 18} R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Bhajan Singh [1976] 1 Q.B. 198 at p. 207.

^{page 74 note 19} South Oxfordshire D.C. v. Secretary of Stale for the Environment [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1092.

^{page 74 note 20} At p. 1099. per Woolf J.

^{page 74 note 21} [1986] AC. 240.

^{page 74 note 22} Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980. s.59.

^{page 74 note 23} Id., s.60(7). (8).

^{page 74 note 24} See n.58. supra.

^{page 74 note 25} See n.93, supra.

^{page 75 note 26} [1986] A.C. 240 at p. 247, per Lord Scarman.

^{page 75 note 27} Ibid., at pp. 250–251.

^{page 75 note 28} [1986] A.C. 484.

^{page 75 note 29} Ibid., at p. 518, per Lord Brightman: cf. at p. 510, per Lord Roskill.

^{page 75 note 30} Ibid., at p. 518. This trend is reinforced by R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Swati [1986] 1 W.L.R. 477.

^{page 75 note 31} [1986] 2 W.L.R. 807.

^{page 75 note 32} Ibid., at p. 813, per Lord Bridge of Harwich.

^{page 75 note 33} Ibid., at p. 830, per Lord Templeman: cf. at p. 843, per Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.

^{page 75 note 34} 1[1986] 1 W.L.R. 28.

^{page 76 note 35} Ibid., at p. 50, per Glidewell J.

^{page 76 note 36} R. v. Boundary Commission for England, ex p. Foot [1983] Q.B. 600 at p. 626.

^{page 76 note 37} R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. McAvoy (1984) 1 W.L.R. 1408.

^{page 76 note 38} Ibid., at p. 1417, per Webster J.

^{page 76 note 39} Ibid.

^{page 76 note 40} R. v. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex p. St. Germain [1979] Q.B. 425.

^{page 77 note 41} R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Broom [1986] Q.B. 198.

^{page 77 note 42} Ibid., at p. 208, per Kennedy J.

^{page 77 note 43} R. v. Deputy Governor of Camphill Prison, ex p. King [1985] Q.B. 735.

^{page 77 note 44} Prison Rules 1964 (S.I. 1964 No. 388), r.47(7).

^{page 77 note 45} [1985] Q.B. 735 at p. 752, per Griffiths L.J.

^{page 77 note 46} Rent Act 1968, s.72.

^{page 77 note 47} R. v. Barnet and Camden Rent Tribunal, ex p. Frey Investments Ltd. [1972] 2 Q.B. 342.

^{page 78 note 48} Ibid., at p. 358, per Salmon L.J.

^{page 78 note 49} [1983] Q.B. 962.

^{page 78 note 50} Ibid., at p. 1001.

^{page 78 note 51} Re Decision of Walker [1944] 1 All E.R. 614 at p. 616, per Du Parcq L.J.

^{page 78 note 52} Luby v. Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation [1964] 2 Q.B. 64 at p. 72, per Diplock L.J. (affd. [1965] 1 Q.B. 214 (C.A.)).

^{page 78 note 53} See n.74, supra.

^{page 78 note 54} See n.80, supra.

^{page 78 note 55} [1983] Q.B. 962 at p. 987.

^{page 79 note 56} Ibid., at pp. 999–1000.

^{page 79 note 57} Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66.

^{page 79 note 58} Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B.223 at p. 230, per Lord Greene M.R.

^{page 79 note 59} Lee v. Department of Education and Science (1967) 66 L.G.R. 211.

^{page 79 note 60} Williams v. Giddy [1911] A.C. 381.

^{page 80 note 61} Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1155 at p. 1161, per Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C.

^{page 80 note 62} [1985] A.C. 1054 (H.L.).

^{page 81 note 63} Ibid., at p. 1078, per Lord Roskill.

^{page 81 note 64} Race Relations Act 1976, s.71.

^{page 81 note 65} [1986] A.C. 112(H.L.).

^{page 83 note 66} Ibid., at p. 174.

^{page 83 note 67} Ibid., at p. 189.

^{page 83 note 68} Ibid., at p. 194.

^{page 83 note 69} Ibid., at p. 197; cf. Lord Templeman at pp. 200–201.

^{page 83 note 70} Ibid., at p. 197.

^{page 83 note 71} Ibid., at p. 202, per Lord Templeman.

^{page 83 note 72} Ibid., at p. 192, per Lord Bridge of Harwich.

Article contents

Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests