IRRATIONALITY Notes Admin Law

IRRATIONALITY
- GCHQ case: decision that is so illogical or unreasonable that no reasonable authority would
have made such an outrageous decision.
- “Wednesbury unreasonableness” = Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v
Wednesbury Corporation
- “Wednesbury unreasonableness” must first be looked into to determine what amounts to
irrationality
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation
 The plaintiffs had applied for a license granted by the defendants which was authorised
under S.1 (1) of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932.
 However, the defendants would only agree to the application under the condition that
no children under the age of fifteen was to be admitted to any entertainment, regardless
of whether the child was accompanied by an adult.
 Plaintiff filed claim based that the requirement is too illogical
 Held: the court had no jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s decision simply because
the court had disagreed with it
 The decision had neither disregarded relevant factors; taken into consideration of
relevant factors; nor was so unreasonable in nature that no reasonable authority would
ever consider the imposition
- “Wednesbury unreasonableness” is used to describe the third limb of the conditions stated
above which all three conditions later became the Wednesbury test.
- Wednesbury case applied in GCHQ case
- However, the court’s jurisdiction lies only in determining whether any decision had been
irrational, not in intervening the power of the administrative authorities to make decisions.
- dire need to impose a high level of unreasonableness as such that no reasonable authority
would have decided in the same manner in order to fulfil the standard of irrationality
- Regina v Coventry City Council, Ex parte Phoenix Aviation
 an Assistant Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police had voiced his concern regarding
the security of the airport’s perimeter fence compromised by demonstrators in a letter
he wrote to the airport manager
 As a result, the council in heeding the police’s concern had taken the decision of
restricting the transportation of livestock at the airport.
 Held: the Council had unlawfully banned the live animal exports from the Conventry
Airport.
- In deciding the case, the learned judge had applied a low standard of irrationality in
determining whether the Conventry City Council had been reasonable in imposing the
restriction.
- As shown in the case, the estimated time taken to complete the enforcement of the case
was long and the costs that would be incurred was high.
- Having taken this factor into consideration, the best alternative would obviously be banning
the exportation of livestock.
- Regina v. Cambridge District Health Authority, Ex parte B
 Parents of a child claimed for the funding of chemotherapy and a second bone marrow
transplant for their 10-year-old
 the Cambridge District Health Authority decided not to fund the treatments as the
doctors thought the treatments would be ineffective and inappropriate
 Court held irrationality
- Low standard of irrationality applied to this case:
 the treatment required by the applicant was of a nominal success rate
 majority of medical opinion said the treatment was merely experimental in nature
 learned judge given too little consideration to the doctors’ opinion
 according to medical opinion no one should undergo a total body irradiation
 failed to take into account that there is a presumed responsibility of the authority to
ensure sufficient funding is made available to other patients under their care
- what may be reasonable for one party may not be so in the eyes of another
 R v Greenwich London Borough Council, ex parte Cedar Holdings = what no person in
their right minds would think of supporting it due to its outrageousness
- Since there is a very thin line between what is rational and what is not, the advice for the
courts would be to tread as carefully as possible
- Actions that may amount to irrationality
 the authority may have reached a decision with no plausible reason.
 the authority had erred in the finding of a fact which is crucial to the case.
 the authority had disregarded departmental policy or representation.
 the decision by the authority is unnecessarily harsh.
 the authority had attached little to no weight to a matter ought to be considered.
 a decision made by the authority is vastly inconsistent with other decisions of the similar
matter.
 the authority had acted discriminatingly without reasonable distinction
- Due to its extreme formulations, the ground of irrationality is hard to be successfully proven
in a judicial review.

IRRATIONALITY Notes Admin Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRRATIONALITY Notes Admin Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRRATIONALITY Notes Admin Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRRATIONALITY

You might also like