What is Wednesbury rule?
A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223). …
What is the difference between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality?
Notwithstanding, Wednesbury review is concerned with the process of reasoning employed in adopting the particular decision in that the focal points are the reasons advanced for a decision. By contrast, proportionality, in the context of rights, is concerned with the outcome of a decision.
What is Wednesbury principle in administrative law?
v Wednesbury Corporation, it was held that if the Decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it, then the courts can interfere. Rather, it is a measured as a decision that a reasonable man wouldn’t come to.
What is super Wednesbury test?
So-called “super-Wednesbury” cases, where the standard of review is dialled down, such that judicial review is less exacting, have tended to involve democratically legitimate decision-makers and/or complex areas of regulation. Wednesbury thus varies in intensity.
Which case is classic example of unreasonableness?
These principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness underwent major modification through the course of decisions in England. A classic example would be the decision of Lord Diplock in the celebrated case of Council of Civil Services Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [20] also known as GCHQ case.
What is meant by unreasonableness in judicial review?
All of the tests are circular; a decision is unreasonable if it is manifestly absurd, if it is “outrageous in its defiance of logic” or if a reasonable person would not have come to it.
What is illegality in public law?
1. Illegality. A decision of a public body may be illegal if the decision maker: misdirects itself in law – for example the decision maker does not understand and apply the law correctly. exercises a power wrongly or for an improper purpose – a decision must be reached on the basis of the facts of the matter in …
Should Wednesbury unreasonableness be replaced with proportionality?
It has even been suggested that Wednesbury should remain the test for cases that require greater judicial deference, while proportionality should be the standard used in cases where a more exacting review is required.
Which case is classical example of unreasonableness?
What is unreasonableness in administrative law?
“Unreasonableness” may also mean that even though the authority has acted according to law in the sense that it has not acted on irrelevant grounds or exercised power for an improper purpose, yet it has given more weight to some factors than they deserved as compared with other factors.
What was established by the Wednesbury case in a court of law?
v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Which case did not deal with principle of unreasonableness?
As correctly pointed out by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council5 the test of a reasonable man or “the man on the Clapham omnibus” as known in the law of torts is not applicable in cases of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Which is the best definition of Wednesbury unreasonableness?
A standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority’s decision. A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it…
Are there any early decisions on the Wednesbury principle?
Early decisions on the unreasonableness principle The principle of unreasonableness does not flow out of the Wednesbury doctrine alone, and it has been widely recognized that unreasonableness has been established as one of the many traditional grounds of review, in administrative law, which pre dates Wednesbury by many years. [ 6]
How did the Wednesbury case get its name?
(Unreasonable) This article explores a concept which is a substantive category of judicial review proceedings – ‘unreasonableness’. The ground received its name from the brilliant, landmark case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 K.B. 223. This ground is also known as ‘irrationality’.
How is the Wednesbury test used in common law?
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. C. Post-Wednesbury in Common law