Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
[1948] 1 KB 223
Ratio Decidendi
A decision of a public authority can be challenged on the ground that it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it (Wednesbury unreasonableness). The court will intervene if the authority has taken into account irrelevant factors, failed to take into account relevant factors, or reached a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have reached it.
حقائق
Wednesbury Corporation granted a licence to the cinema operators to show films on Sundays, subject to the condition that no children under 15 be admitted. The cinema operators challenged this condition as unreasonable, arguing it was beyond the Corporation's powers or an unreasonable exercise of its discretion.
فیصلے کا خلاصہ
Lord Greene MR dismissed the challenge, holding that the condition was within the Corporation's powers and not so unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention. He set out the principles governing judicial review of administrative discretion: the court cannot substitute its own view for that of the authority; it can only intervene if the authority acted illegally, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it.
اہم اقتباسات
"It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere."
— Lord Greene MR
"The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account."
— Lord Greene MR
بعد کا علاج
Wednesbury unreasonableness remains a ground of judicial review, though its scope has been modified by the development of proportionality as a standard of review in human rights cases.
In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] (GCHQ case), Lord Diplock reformulated the grounds of judicial review as illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury), and procedural impropriety.