Administrative Law, Irrationality in English Law
‘I think that the day will come when it will be more widely recognised that Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, insofar as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. The depth of judicial review and the deference due to administrative discretion vary with the subject matter. It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd.’ ( (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2001] UKHL 26, [32], Lord Cooke of Thorndon).
Explain and discuss, illustrating your answer by reference to relevant case law.
There are three grounds of judicial review in English law which were recognized by Lord Diplock in GCHQ case. One of them, the unreasonableness, was established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp and from that time on the English courts had full hands with a big amount of cases which were trying to pull the standard of unreasonableness down. This essay will talk about this ground of judicial review, its development and its current position in English law.
The first sentence of Lord Cooke criticizes the test developed in common law which put the standard so high that an administrative decision can be struck down only if „any other reasonable authority would not have come to this decision.“ This means that the test requires something overwhelming in order to strike the decision of an elected body down (Lord Greene) . Lord Greene in fact recognized two tests for unresonableness. First, unreasonableness can be a general description of a public authority doing things that must not be done, such as not directing itself properly in law by considering matters which it is not
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, insofar as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. The depth of judicial review and the deference due to administrative discretion vary with the subject matter. It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd.’ ( (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2001] UKHL 26, [32], Lord Cooke of Thorndon).
Explain and discuss, illustrating your answer by reference to relevant case law.
There are three grounds of judicial review in English law which were recognized by Lord Diplock in GCHQ case. One of them, the unreasonableness, was established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp and from that time on the English courts had full hands with a big amount of cases which were trying to pull the standard of unreasonableness down. This essay will talk about this ground of judicial review, its development and its current position in English law.
The first sentence of Lord Cooke criticizes the test developed in common law which put the standard so high that an administrative decision can be struck down only if „any other reasonable authority would not have come to this decision.“ This means that the test requires something overwhelming in order to strike the decision of an elected body down (Lord Greene) . Lord Greene in fact recognized two tests for unresonableness. First, unreasonableness can be a general description of a public authority doing things that must not be done, such as not directing itself properly in law by considering matters which it is not