Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1 KB 223^[1] is an English law case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial review. This special sense is accordingly known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.

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^[2] by Lord Diplock:

Facts

In 1947 a cinema company, Associated Provincial Picture Houses, was granted a licence by the Wednesbury Corporation, the local authority of the market town of Wednesbury in Staffordshire, to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15 were admitted to the cinema on Sundays. Associated Provincial Picture Houses sought a declaration that such a condition was unacceptable, and outside the power of the Corporation to impose.

Judgement

The court held that it could not intervene to overturn the decision of the defendant simply because the court disagreed with it. To have the right to intervene, the court would have to form the conclusion that:

• the Wednesbury Corporation, in making that decision, took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
• the Corporation failed to take into 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, M. R.,

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 requires 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 they 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, fairness, fundamental justice and due process.
• In the United States, a similarly dominant case is Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, , 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").
• Re Smith & Fawcett [1942] Ch 304, a company law case also dealing with the control of discretion
• Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore

Notes

External links

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation