Unlawful due to something being so wrong in the substance of decision
Very controversial-merits challenge
Irrationality:
APP v Wednesbury-Greene says “if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that
no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, the courts can interfere….to prove a
case of this kind would require something overwhelming”; to not let under 15’s in cinema on
Sundays; restricting people’s freedoms? Problems with this-more of a statement of
conclusion rather than being a test; unpredictable outcomes; doesn’t provide a framework;
doesn’t deal with intensity of review
Lord Woolf in Coughlan case- “rationality, as it has developed in modern public law, has two
faces: 1) one is the barely known decision which simply defies comprehension, 2) the other
is a decision which can be seen to have proceeded by flawed logic”
Irrational:
Backhouse v Lambeth-rent for all council house has to increase by a certain sum;
rent of unoccupied council house increased by £18,000 per week (to prevent rent
increase in other houses; went against statutory power; said it’s unreasonable)
Glamorgan v Rafferty
Wheeler v Leicester City Council-RFU tour to apartheid S. Africa; 3 Leicester Tigers
players involved; amateur club at time; Gov. policy said no to the tour; Leicester CC
asks club to condemn tour; club’s answer unsatisfactory; they suspended club’s use
of council’s recreation ground (where they train) and based this decision on Race
Relations Act and promoting good race relations; courts said this was so
unreasonable that no local authority should be able to do this since Leicester CC
punishing club for not saying the rights things; no illegality (express right of opinions)
read HL’s decision (rationale)
Medway Council-sitting of 5th London Airport; said they wouldn’t consider expansion
of Gatwick (due to agreement with local council that Gatwick wouldn’t be
expanded); courts say it was irrational on grounds that reasoning was flawed;
Rogers v Swindon-availability of Herceptin for early stage breast cancer patients;
Herceptin not licensed for this treatment; policy to fund treatment, if recommended
by clinician, only in exceptional circumstances; cost not an issue; treatment of R
recommended by clinician and refused because not exceptional???
Litvinenko
Not Irrational:
Nottingham v SS Environment
R v Cambridge
R v Secretary of State for Defence ex parte Smith
Death of WednesburyABCIFER (Court of Appeal says no)-we may not like the test but still
remains and it’s up to Supreme Court to inter it; Keyu-will take a 9-judge court to do this;
proportionality only in HR or EU cases
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller reshmabegum. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.