You are looking at 1-16 of 16 entries  for:

  • All: Wednesbury unreasonableness x
clear all

View:

Overview

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Subject: Law

One of the common law grounds of judicial review of administrative action, as formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 ...

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Wednesbury unreasonableness   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law (9 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
166 words

...Wednesbury unreasonableness One of the common law grounds of judicial review of administrative action, as formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223 (CA). The term denotes behaviour on the part of a public authority that is particularly perverse or absurd ( R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [ 1986 ] AC 240 (HL)). However, recent cases indicate that the standard of unreasonableness may be applied with varying degrees of stringency. In cases...

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Wednesbury unreasonableness   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law Enforcement (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2015
Subject:
Law
Length:
166 words

... unreasonableness One of the common law grounds of judicial review of administrative action, as formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223 (CA). The term denotes behaviour on the part of a public authority that is particularly perverse or absurd ( R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [ 1986 ] AC 240 (HL). However, recent cases indicate that the standard of unreasonableness may be applied with varying degrees of stringency. In cases...

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Wednesbury unreasonableness  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
One of the common law grounds of judicial review of administrative action, as formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA). The ...
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
(1948)To lawyers the name ‘Wednesbury’—an otherwise unexceptional West Midlands town—is synonymous with the principle that no public authority has the power to act unreasonably. This principle is an ...
irrationality

irrationality  

Reference type:
Overview Page
Subject:
Law
N.One of the common-law grounds of judicial review of administrative action. It is presumed that public authorities are never empowered to exercise their powers irrationally; therefore irrational ...
unreasonableness

unreasonableness ((of administrative action))   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law (9 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
10 words

...unreasonableness (of administrative action) See Wednesbury unreasonableness . See also irrationality...

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)   Reference library

The New Oxford Companion to Law

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2009
Subject:
Law
Length:
560 words

...Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation ( 1948 ) To lawyers the name ‘Wednesbury’—an otherwise unexceptional West Midlands town—is synonymous with the principle that no public authority has the power to act unreasonably. This principle is an ancient one, but the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation ( 1948 ) is (in)famous for the considerable degree of deference the judges said they would afford decisions by elected public authorities. Although the Wednesbury case became an emblem of judicial...

irrationality

irrationality   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law (9 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
141 words

... ultra vires . Although it denotes behaviour that falls short of what is to be expected of a rational public authority, the precise parameters of the term are unclear and it has been used to describe a range of behaviour. It is often used interchangeably with the term Wednesbury unreasonableness but has become the more common term since the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [ 1985 ] AC 374 (HL), in which the terms irrationality, illegality, and procedural impropriety were used to define the common law grounds or...

irrationality

irrationality   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law Enforcement (2 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2015
Subject:
Law
Length:
140 words

...ultra vires . Although it denotes behaviour that falls short of what is to be expected of a rational public authority, the precise parameters of the term are unclear and it has been used to describe a range of behaviour. It is often used interchangeably with the term Wednesbury unreasonableness but has become the more common term since the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [ 1985 ] AC 374 (HL), in which the terms irrationality, illegality, and procedural impropriety were used to define the common law grounds or heads...

proportionality

proportionality   Quick reference

A Dictionary of Law (9 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
395 words

...ex p Brind [ 1991 ] UKHL 4, [ 1991 ] 1 AC 696, the House of Lords emphatically rejected the doctrine’s incorporation. Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, judges have discussed whether the Wednesbury unreasonableness test for judicial review is adequate protection for Convention rights and whether in deciding whether a decision is unreasonable, the court might also consider whether it was proportionate ( R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Daly [ 2001 ] UKHL 2623, [ 2001 ] 2 AC 532). 2. A central provision of the European Convention...

Reasonableness

Reasonableness   Reference library

The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2007
Subject:
Law
Length:
1,820 words

...value protected by the common law or whether it infringes any right or freedom expressly or impliedly granted by the Constitution. Wednesbury unreasonableness remains a determinant of the validity of administrative decisions, proportionality not being a separate determinant. In England, however, proportionality has been applied in a way that equates it, at least in practical effect, with Wednesbury unreasonableness—the question being, on one view, whether on either approach the decision maker has struck a balance that was fairly and reasonably open....

Fact finding

Fact finding   Reference library

The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2007
Subject:
Law
Length:
1,434 words

...the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 . The second arose by reason of amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in 1995 : the High Court now has sole jurisdiction to review immigration and refugee decisions for want of natural justice , ostensible bias, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and taking into account irrelevant considerations, or failing to take into account relevant considerations. In a majority judgment in Abebe v Commonwealth ( 1999 ), the Court upheld the legislation, which significantly restricted the scope of review of such...

Gummow, William Montague Charles

Gummow, William Montague Charles (born 9 October 1942)   Reference library

The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2007
Subject:
Law
Length:
1,616 words
Illustration(s):
1

...of standing in Alphapharm v SmithKline Beecham ( 1994 ), Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund ( 1998 ) and the Truth About Motorways Case ( 2000 ); his discussion, in Minister for Immigration v Eshetu ( 1999 ) of Wednesbury unreasonableness and ‘jurisdictional fact’; and his analysis of the writs of mandamus and prohibition in the joint judgment with Gaudron in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala ( 2000 ). But it would not do him justice to single out examples; Gummow's contribution has been...

unreasonableness

unreasonableness   Reference library

Australian Law Dictionary (3 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
294 words

... Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223, 229–30. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5(2)(g) and 6(2)(g) codifies Wednesbury unreasonableness as a ground of review for ‘an exercise of power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power’. Some questions remain about the expansion of the scope of the Wednesbury category (e.g. whether, as later English cases suggest, a decision could be unreasonable in a Wednesbury sense if it is morally outrageous or defies...

policy

policy   Reference library

Australian Law Dictionary (3 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
527 words

...against public authorities, limited to situations in which the defendant exercises a ‘public function’ (undefined) with a Wednesbury unreasonableness standard ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223, 229–30). WA enacted the recommended generic policy defence; NSW enacted it for special statutory powers. In all other jurisdictions except NT and SA (ACT, NSW, Queensland, Tasmania) the Wednesbury standard applies to all actions for breach of statutory duty; in Victoria it applies only in relation to road authorities. ...

error

error   Reference library

Australian Law Dictionary (3 ed.)

Reference type:
Subject Reference
Current Version:
2018
Subject:
Law
Length:
504 words

...on the merits of a case ( see merits review ) differs from an appeal on grounds of error of law. A rehearing is a hearing de novo on the merits. The distinction between merits and law can be artificial: e.g. Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of review of an administrative decision because the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have decided that way (which makes it an error of law rather than a decision on the merits). (3) Error may be a ground of judicial review of an administrative decision. It is addressed...

View: