Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
Case Brief: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
Citation: [1948] 1 KB 223 (Court of Appeal)
Court: Court of Appeal (UK)
Year: 1948
Legal Area: Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Facts:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd operated a cinema.
Wednesbury Corporation (the local authority) granted them a licence to operate on Sundays but attached a condition that no children under the age of 15 were to be admitted on Sundays.
The cinema company challenged the condition, arguing it was unreasonable and ultra vires (beyond the powers of the local authority).
Issues:
Whether the local authority’s condition on the licence was lawful.
What is the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions?
What constitutes "unreasonableness" in administrative decisions for courts to intervene?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that the local authority’s decision was lawful.
The Court laid down the famous test of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” to determine when courts can interfere with administrative decisions.
Key Legal Principle — The Wednesbury Test:
A decision will only be quashed if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
The court will not substitute its own decision for that of the administrative body but will intervene only if:
The decision is irrational or perverse.
It defies logic or accepted moral standards.
The decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it.
Significance of the Wednesbury Principle:
This case sets the standard for judicial review of administrative decisions.
It limits judicial interference to cases where the decision is egregiously unreasonable.
This test is often summarized as “no reasonable decision-maker” could have made the decision.
Subsequent Developments:
The Wednesbury test has been influential in common law jurisdictions for decades.
It was later refined or supplemented by the proportionality test in European and constitutional jurisdictions, especially for human rights matters.
However, Wednesbury remains the cornerstone for reviewing ordinary administrative decisions.
Related Case Law:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — introduced grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality (the Wednesbury unreasonableness).
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind (1991) — applied Wednesbury in national security contexts.
R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996) — application of Wednesbury in discrimination.
Human Rights Act 1998 cases — proportionality test introduced alongside Wednesbury.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd (Applicant) vs Wednesbury Corporation (Respondent) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (England and Wales) |
| Year | 1948 |
| Legal Issue | Judicial review and reasonableness of administrative decision |
| Holding | Decision lawful; not unreasonable to the extent courts should intervene |
| Test Established | Wednesbury unreasonableness — courts intervene only if decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it |
| Significance | Sets the threshold for judicial review of administrative actions |
Conclusion:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation is a foundational case in administrative law defining the limits of judicial review. It established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard, emphasizing judicial restraint and deferring to administrative decision-makers unless their decisions are irrational or perverse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments