Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 is an
English lawEnglish law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the United States...
case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on
judicial reviewJudicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a...
. This special sense is accordingly known as
Wednesbury reasonableness.
The court stated 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
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 or the GCHQ case is an important case in English administrative law...
by
Lord DiplockWilliam John Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock was an English judge and Law Lord.-Early life:Born the son of a Croydon solicitor, he attended Whitgift School and University College, Oxford, where he was later to become an Honorary Fellow.-Career:He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1968 and was...
,
"Associated Provincial Picture Houses" were granted a licence by the defendant local authority to operate a
cinemaA movie theater, movie theatre, picture theatre, film theater or cinema is a venue, usually a building, for viewing motion pictures ....
on condition that no children under 15 were admitted to the cinema on Sundays.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 is an
English lawEnglish law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the United States...
case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on
judicial reviewJudicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a...
. This special sense is accordingly known as
Wednesbury reasonableness.
The court stated 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
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 or the GCHQ case is an important case in English administrative law...
by
Lord DiplockWilliam John Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock was an English judge and Law Lord.-Early life:Born the son of a Croydon solicitor, he attended Whitgift School and University College, Oxford, where he was later to become an Honorary Fellow.-Career:He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1968 and was...
,
Facts
"Associated Provincial Picture Houses" were granted a licence by the defendant local authority to operate a
cinemaA movie theater, movie theatre, picture theatre, film theater or cinema is a venue, usually a building, for viewing motion pictures ....
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
WednesburyWednesbury is a market town in England's Black Country, part of the Sandwell metropolitan borough in West Midlands, near the source of the River Tame. Similarly to the word Wednesday, it is pronounced Wenz-bur-ree.-History:...
Corporation to impose.
Judgment
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,
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 lawAdministrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law...
bodies.
In recent times, particularly as a result of the enactment of the
Human Rights Act 1998The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights...
, 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 RightsThe European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is an international judicial body established under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 to monitor respect of human rights by states...
now require the reviewing court to subject the original decision to "anxious scrutiny" whether 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.
See also
- Compare: 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, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness...
, fairnessFairness or being fair may refer to:* Distributive justice* Equity * Fairness, absence of bias in specific realms:**** In American broadcasting, presentation of controversies in accord with the Fairness Doctrine...
, fundamental justiceFundamental justice is a legal term that signifies a dynamic concept of fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation, whereas principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the...
and due processDue process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law...
.
- In the United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, a similarly dominant case is Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of its own statutory mandate...
, , which describes the level of deference accorded to final legislative rulemaking issued by federal agencies with the authority to do so. The legal standard, however, that is most comparable to Wednesbury unreasonableness is the "arbitrary and capricious" standard applied to most regulatory decisions undertaken without trial-type procedures (those rendered after trial-type procedures must be "supported by substantial evidence").
External links