Wednesbury unreasonableness

Wednesbury unreasonableness

In English law, Wednesbury unreasonableness is unreasonableness of an administrative decision that is so extreme that courts may intervene to correct it. The term derives from "Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation" [1948] 1 KB 223, where the court stated that it would only intervene to correct a bad administrative decision on grounds of its unreasonableness if the decision was, as articulated in "Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service" (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock, "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."

Facts of the case

"Associated Provincial Picture Houses" were granted a licence by the defendant local authority to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15 were admitted to the cinema on Sundays. The claimants sought a declaration that such a condition was unacceptable, and outside the power of the Wednesbury Corporation to impose.

The court held that it could not intervene to overturn the decision of the defendant corporation simply because the court disagreed with it. To have the right to intervene, the court would have to form the conclusion that:
* the corporation, in making that decision, took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
* the corporation failed to take account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
* the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.

The court held that the condition did not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, the claim failed and the decision of the Wednesbury Corporation was upheld. According to Lord Greene MR,

"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 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 L.J. in "Short v. Poole Corporation" [1926] 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 these things run into one another.

Use of this case

The test laid down in this case, in all three limbs, is known as "the Wednesbury test". The term "Wednesbury 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 into the decisions of administrative law bodies.

In recent times, particularly as a result of the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, the judiciary have resiled from this strict abstentionist approach, recognising that in certain circumstances it is necessary for them to undertake a more searching review of administrative decisions. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights now require the reviewing court to subject the original decision to "anxious scrutiny" when an administrative measure infringes a Convention right. In order to justify such an intrusion, the Respondents will have to show that it pursued a "pressing social need" and that the means employed to achieve this were proportionate to the limitation of the right.

ee also

*Compare: patently unreasonable, fairness, fundamental justice and due process.
*In the United States, a similarly dominant case is "Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council", ussc|467|837|1984.

External links

* [ Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation]

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

См. также в других словарях:

  • Wednesbury unreasonableness — A standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority s decision. A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting… …   Law dictionary

  • Wednesbury — For the legal principle, see Wednesbury unreasonableness. For the former parliamentary constituency, see Wednesbury (UK Parliament constituency). Coordinates: 52°33′10″N 2°01′10″W /  …   Wikipedia

  • Patently unreasonable — In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of administrative decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness,… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review in English law — See also: Judicial review Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of… …   Wikipedia

  • Legitimate expectation — In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation arises from administrative law, a branch of public law. In proceedings for judicial review, it applies the principles of fairness and reasonableness to the situation where a person has an… …   Wikipedia

  • Landmark decision — A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular… …   Wikipedia

  • Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Singapore) — Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act A police officer equipped with a firearm and handcuffs An Act to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order, the control of supplies by sea to Singapore, and the prevention of strikes and …   Wikipedia

  • Legal tests — are various kinds of commonly applied methods of evaluation used to resolve matters of jurisprudence.cite book title = Responsibility in Law and Morality first = Peter last = Cane publisher = Hart Publishing year = 2002 id = 1841133213] In the… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review in English Law — Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a… …   Wikipedia

  • judicial review — n 1: review 2: a constitutional doctrine that gives to a court system the power to annul legislative or executive acts which the judges declare to be unconstitutional; also: the process of using this power see also checks and balances; marbury v …   Law dictionary

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное

Прямая ссылка:
Нажмите правой клавишей мыши и выберите «Копировать ссылку»