Knowledge (XXG)

British Oxygen v Minister of Technology

Source 📝

130: 24: 194:
for £4m it spent on gas cylinders costing £20 each, in its atmospheric gas and hydrogen manufacturing business. The Board had a discretionary power to give grants to help firms with capital expenditure under the Industrial Development Act 1966 s 13(1). Its policy was not to give grants for items
214:
There may be cases where an officer or authority ought to listen to a substantial argument reasonably presented urging a change of policy. What the authority must not do is to refuse to listen at all. But a Ministry or large authority may have had to deal already with a multitude of similar
215:
applications and then they will almost certainly have evolved a policy so precise that it could well be called a rule. There can be no objection to that, provided the authority is always willing to listen to anyone with something new to say...
203:
The House of Lords accepted that the department was entitled to make a rule or policy, if it was prepared to listen to arguments for the exercise of individual discretion. On the facts, it was entitled to refuse the application.
41: 418: 518: 251: 444: 304: 356: 88: 60: 280: 394: 67: 382: 330: 74: 370: 292: 469: 140: 107: 56: 342: 179: 45: 244: 195:
under £25. British Oxygen Co. Ltd. argued that its application was turned down without properly considering its merits.
81: 237: 34: 523: 406: 207: 458: 175: 129: 432: 268: 219:
Lord Dilhorne said the right might be described as one to ask that the policy is changed.
191: 512: 229: 489: 150: 23: 491:
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1970] UKHL 4
233: 17: 190:
British Oxygen claimed that it should be given grants by the
222:
Lord Morris, Lord Wilberforce, and Lord Diplock agreed.
157: 146: 136: 122: 48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 420:R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office 212: 446:R (Miller) v SS for Exiting the European Union 171:British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology 123:British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology 344:R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B (No 1) 245: 8: 306:Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission 358:R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary 252: 238: 230: 128: 119: 108:Learn how and when to remove this message 57:"British Oxygen v Minister of Technology" 481: 319:British Oxygen v Minister of Technology 281:AP Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp 519:United Kingdom constitutional case law 395:R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon HA 383:R (Daly) v SS for the Home Department 331:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service 7: 46:adding citations to reliable sources 371:Clark v University of Lincolnshire 293:Padfield v Minister of Agriculture 14: 470:United Kingdom constitutional law 260:Substantive judicial review cases 22: 33:needs additional citations for 1: 540: 455: 441: 429: 415: 403: 391: 379: 367: 353: 339: 327: 315: 301: 289: 277: 265: 162: 127: 407:Huang v Home Secretary 217: 459:UK constitutional law 176:UK constitutional law 210:said the following: 42:improve this article 433:Ahmed v HM Treasury 465: 464: 178:case, concerning 167: 166: 118: 117: 110: 92: 531: 503: 502: 501: 499: 486: 447: 421: 359: 345: 307: 254: 247: 240: 231: 132: 120: 113: 106: 102: 99: 93: 91: 50: 26: 18: 539: 538: 534: 533: 532: 530: 529: 528: 509: 508: 507: 506: 497: 495: 488: 487: 483: 478: 466: 461: 451: 445: 437: 425: 419: 411: 399: 387: 375: 363: 357: 349: 343: 335: 323: 311: 305: 297: 285: 273: 269:Kruse v Johnson 261: 258: 228: 201: 188: 180:judicial review 163:Judicial review 114: 103: 97: 94: 51: 49: 39: 27: 12: 11: 5: 537: 535: 527: 526: 524:Board of Trade 521: 511: 510: 505: 504: 494:, 15 July 1970 480: 479: 477: 474: 473: 472: 463: 462: 456: 453: 452: 442: 439: 438: 430: 427: 426: 416: 413: 412: 404: 401: 400: 392: 389: 388: 380: 377: 376: 368: 365: 364: 354: 351: 350: 340: 337: 336: 328: 325: 324: 316: 313: 312: 302: 299: 298: 290: 287: 286: 278: 275: 274: 266: 263: 262: 259: 257: 256: 249: 242: 234: 227: 224: 200: 197: 192:Board of Trade 187: 184: 165: 164: 160: 159: 155: 154: 148: 144: 143: 141:House of Lords 138: 134: 133: 125: 124: 116: 115: 30: 28: 21: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 536: 525: 522: 520: 517: 516: 514: 493: 492: 485: 482: 475: 471: 468: 467: 460: 454: 449: 448: 440: 435: 434: 428: 423: 422: 414: 409: 408: 402: 397: 396: 390: 385: 384: 378: 373: 372: 366: 361: 360: 352: 347: 346: 338: 333: 332: 326: 321: 320: 314: 309: 308: 300: 295: 294: 288: 283: 282: 276: 271: 270: 264: 255: 250: 248: 243: 241: 236: 235: 232: 225: 223: 220: 216: 211: 209: 205: 198: 196: 193: 185: 183: 181: 177: 173: 172: 161: 156: 152: 149: 145: 142: 139: 135: 131: 126: 121: 112: 109: 101: 90: 87: 83: 80: 76: 73: 69: 66: 62: 59: –  58: 54: 53:Find sources: 47: 43: 37: 36: 31:This article 29: 25: 20: 19: 16: 496:, retrieved 490: 484: 443: 431: 417: 405: 393: 381: 369: 355: 341: 329: 318: 317: 303: 291: 279: 267: 221: 218: 213: 206: 202: 189: 174:UKHL 4 is a 170: 169: 168: 104: 98:January 2020 95: 85: 78: 71: 64: 52: 40:Please help 35:verification 32: 15: 513:Categories 476:References 374:1 WLR 1988 68:newspapers 348:1 WLR 898 208:Lord Reid 153:, AC 610 147:Citations 386:2 AC 532 310:2 AC 147 284:1 KB 223 226:See also 199:Judgment 158:Keywords 498:9 April 424:UKHL 60 410:UKSC 11 272:2 QB 91 82:scholar 450:UKSC 5 436:UKSC 2 398:QB 213 362:AC 407 334:AC 374 322:AC 610 296:AC 997 151:UKHL 4 84:  77:  70:  63:  55:  186:Facts 137:Court 89:JSTOR 75:books 500:2019 457:see 61:news 44:by 515:: 182:. 253:e 246:t 239:v 111:) 105:( 100:) 96:( 86:· 79:· 72:· 65:· 38:.

Index


verification
improve this article
adding citations to reliable sources
"British Oxygen v Minister of Technology"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR
Learn how and when to remove this message

House of Lords
UKHL 4
UK constitutional law
judicial review
Board of Trade
Lord Reid
v
t
e
Kruse v Johnson
AP Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B (No 1)
R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary
Clark v University of Lincolnshire

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.