558:
as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting "unreasonably." Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington LJ in
42:
562:
Ch. 66, 90, 91 gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all
557:
It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used
600:
requires the reviewing court to subject the original decision to "anxious scrutiny" as to whether an administrative measure infringes a
Convention right. In order to justify such an intrusion, the Respondents have to show that they pursued a "pressing social need" and that the means employed to
580:
unreasonableness" is used to describe the third limb, of being so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have decided that way. This case or the principle laid down is cited in United
Kingdom courts as a reason for courts to be hesitant to interfere with decisions of
508:, cinemas could be open from Mondays to Saturdays but not on Sundays, and under a regulation, the commanding officer of military forces stationed in a neighbourhood could apply to the licensing authority to open a cinema on Sundays.
531:
to quash the decision of the defendant simply because the court disagreed with it. For the court to adopt any remedies against decisions of public bodies such as
Wednesbury Corporation, it would have to find that the decision-maker:
670: (1984), which describes the level of deference accorded to final legislative rulemaking made by federal agencies with the authority to do so. The legal standard most comparable to Wednesbury unreasonableness is the "
728:
471:
655:
604:
The UK courts have also ruled that an opinion formed by an employer or other contracting body in relation to a contractual matter has to be "reasonable" in the sense in which that expression is used in
469:
The court gave three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in
247:
674:" standard applied to most regulatory decisions undertaken without trial-type procedures (those rendered after trial-type procedures must be "supported by substantial evidence").
660:
761:
821:
515:
legalised opening cinemas on
Sundays by the local licensing authorities "subject to such conditions as the authority may think fit to impose" after a majority vote by the
483:
So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.
596:
from this strict abstentionist approach, arguing that in certain circumstances it is necessary to undertake a more searching review of administrative decisions. The
841:
811:
685:
519:. Associated Provincial Picture Houses sought a declaration that Wednesbury's condition was unacceptable and outside the power of the corporation to impose.
423:
104:
737:
671:
715:
59:
614:
542:
had made a decision that was completely absurd, a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have possibly made it.
341:
416:
353:
336:
100:
331:
791:
597:
476:
376:
546:
The court ruled that the corporation's conduct was not inappropriate and complied with the standards that had been set out.
536:
had given undue relevance to facts that in reality lacked the relevance for being considered in the decision-making process.
762:
CVG Siderurgicia del
Orinoco SA v London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited ‘The Vainqueur Jose’: 1979
321:
836:
381:
504:, on condition that no children under 15, whether accompanied by an adult or not, were admitted on Sundays. Under the
409:
371:
326:
295:
512:
826:
816:
539:
had not given relevance to facts that were relevant and worthy of being considered in the decision-making process
806:
346:
505:
257:
252:
161:
664:
631:
589:
301:
284:
156:
108:
678:
831:
151:
639:
277:
207:
582:
397:
262:
137:
446:
289:
181:
733:
41:
17:
454:
267:
238:
171:
123:
711:
667:
550:
166:
85:
800:
650:
501:
497:
194:
176:
774:
635:
213:
643:
450:
442:
272:
227:
493:
221:
187:
47:
736: at para. 410, 3 All ER 935, 3 WLR 1174, ICR 14, AC 374, IRLR 28,
492:
In 1947, Associated
Provincial Picture Houses was granted a licence by the
201:
593:
516:
572:
The test laid down in this case, in all three limbs, is known as "the
775:"Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 (18 March 2015)"
792:
Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation
588:
In recent times, particularly as a result of the enactment of the
438:
Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation
682:
Ch 304, a company law case dealing with the control of discretion
607:
Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
729:
Council of Civil
Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
601:
achieve this were proportionate to the limitation of the right.
472:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
708:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation
35:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation
527:
The court decided that it had no power to issue a writ of
656:
Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
114:
96:
91:
80:
65:
55:
34:
764:, updated 25 July 2021, accessed 1 September 2023
555:
481:
453:, which would make it liable to be quashed on
417:
8:
424:
410:
133:
40:
31:
822:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
609:: see the decision of the High Court in
700:
389:
361:
311:
236:
143:
136:
842:United Kingdom constitutional case law
812:United Kingdom administrative case law
7:
60:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
613:(1979) 1 LlLR 557, and that of the
445:case that sets out the standard of
563:these things run into one another.
25:
653:, a similarly dominant case is
619:Braganza v BP Shipping Limited
598:European Court of Human Rights
513:Sunday Entertainments Act 1932
1:
689:unreasonableness in Singapore
69:November 10, 1947
18:Wednesbury unreasonableness
858:
712:[1947] EWCA Civ 1
560:Short v Poole Corporation
119:
86:[1947] EWCA Civ 1
39:
718: (England and Wales)
672:arbitrary and capricious
314:common law jurisdictions
364:civil law jurisdictions
302:Patent unreasonableness
248:Fettering of discretion
679:Re Smith & Fawcett
565:
506:Cinematograph Act 1909
485:
258:Nondelegation doctrine
253:Legitimate expectation
162:Exhaustion of remedies
734:[1983] UKHL 6
632:patently unreasonable
592:, the judiciary have
590:Human Rights Act 1998
449:in the decision of a
362:Administrative law in
312:Administrative law in
157:Delegated legislation
152:Administrative court
837:1947 in British law
640:fundamental justice
278:Fundamental justice
611:The Vainqueur José
583:administrative law
398:Constitutional law
263:Procedural justice
144:General principles
138:Administrative law
29:English legal case
576:test". The term "
434:
433:
132:
131:
16:(Redirected from
849:
827:1947 in case law
817:Common law rules
779:
778:
771:
765:
758:
752:
746:
740:
725:
719:
705:
464:unreasonableness
447:unreasonableness
426:
419:
412:
290:Unreasonableness
182:Prerogative writ
134:
92:Court membership
76:
74:
44:
32:
21:
857:
856:
852:
851:
850:
848:
847:
846:
807:1947 in England
797:
796:
788:
783:
782:
773:
772:
768:
760:Swarbrick, D.,
759:
755:
747:
743:
726:
722:
716:Court of Appeal
714:, 1 K.B. 223,
706:
702:
697:
627:
570:
553:said (at 229),
525:
496:Corporation in
490:
455:judicial review
441:1 KB 223 is an
430:
363:
313:
285:Proportionality
268:Natural justice
239:judicial review
172:Ministerial act
128:
124:Judicial review
72:
70:
51:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
855:
853:
845:
844:
839:
834:
829:
824:
819:
814:
809:
799:
798:
795:
794:
787:
786:External links
784:
781:
780:
766:
753:
741:
738:House of Lords
720:
699:
698:
696:
693:
692:
691:
683:
675:
647:
626:
623:
569:
566:
551:Lord Greene MR
544:
543:
540:
537:
524:
521:
489:
486:
432:
431:
429:
428:
421:
414:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
392:
391:
390:Related topics
387:
386:
385:
384:
379:
374:
366:
365:
359:
358:
357:
356:
351:
350:
349:
342:United Kingdom
339:
334:
329:
324:
316:
315:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
299:
287:
282:
281:
280:
275:
270:
260:
255:
250:
242:
241:
234:
233:
232:
231:
224:
219:
218:
217:
210:
205:
198:
191:
179:
174:
169:
167:Justiciability
164:
159:
154:
146:
145:
141:
140:
130:
129:
127:
126:
120:
117:
116:
112:
111:
98:
97:Judges sitting
94:
93:
89:
88:
82:
78:
77:
67:
63:
62:
57:
53:
52:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
854:
843:
840:
838:
835:
833:
830:
828:
825:
823:
820:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
804:
802:
793:
790:
789:
785:
776:
770:
767:
763:
757:
754:
751:, KB 491, 493
750:
749:Harman v Butt
745:
742:
739:
735:
731:
730:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
704:
701:
694:
690:
688:
684:
681:
680:
676:
673:
669:
666:
662:
658:
657:
652:
651:United States
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
624:
622:
620:
616:
615:Supreme Court
612:
608:
602:
599:
595:
591:
586:
584:
579:
575:
567:
564:
561:
554:
552:
547:
541:
538:
535:
534:
533:
530:
522:
520:
518:
514:
509:
507:
503:
500:to operate a
499:
498:Staffordshire
495:
487:
484:
480:
478:
474:
473:
467:
465:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
427:
422:
420:
415:
413:
408:
407:
405:
404:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
388:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
369:
368:
367:
360:
355:
354:United States
352:
348:
345:
344:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
310:
303:
300:
298:
297:
293:
292:
291:
288:
286:
283:
279:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
245:
244:
243:
240:
235:
230:
229:
225:
223:
220:
216:
215:
211:
209:
206:
204:
203:
199:
197:
196:
195:Habeas corpus
192:
190:
189:
185:
184:
183:
180:
178:
177:Ouster clause
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
142:
139:
135:
125:
122:
121:
118:
113:
110:
106:
102:
99:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
68:
64:
61:
58:
54:
49:
43:
38:
33:
27:
19:
769:
756:
748:
744:
727:
723:
707:
703:
686:
677:
654:
618:
610:
606:
603:
587:
577:
573:
571:
568:Significance
559:
556:
548:
545:
528:
526:
510:
491:
482:
477:Lord Diplock
470:
468:
463:
459:
458:
437:
436:
435:
337:South Africa
294:
237:Grounds for
226:
214:Quo warranto
212:
200:
193:
186:
105:Somervell LJ
26:
832:Legal tests
644:due process
457:, known as
451:public body
443:English law
273:Due process
228:Ultra vires
208:Prohibition
109:Singleton J
101:Lord Greene
801:Categories
695:References
687:Wednesbury
578:Wednesbury
574:Wednesbury
529:certiorari
494:Wednesbury
460:Wednesbury
296:Wednesbury
222:Rulemaking
188:Certiorari
84:1 KB 223,
73:1947-11-10
48:Wednesbury
630:Compare:
621:UKSC 17.
332:Singapore
322:Australia
636:fairness
625:See also
585:bodies.
523:Judgment
377:Mongolia
347:Scotland
202:Mandamus
115:Keywords
81:Citation
649:In the
594:resiled
517:borough
382:Ukraine
71: (
66:Decided
46:Former
502:cinema
327:Canada
50:Cinema
732:
710:
663:
488:Facts
372:China
56:Court
665:U.S.
642:and
511:The
668:837
661:467
617:in
549:As
475:by
803::
659:,
638:,
634:,
479::
466:.
107:,
103:,
777:.
646:.
425:e
418:t
411:v
75:)
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
