Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1

Judgement for the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation

KEY POINTS

A decision can be challenged and potentially overturned by the courts if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd was granted a cinema license by the Wednesbury Corporation, subject to a condition that no children under 15, accompanied by an adult or not, could be admitted on Sundays.
The Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 allowed local licensing authorities to open cinemas on Sundays, subject to conditions.
The cinema sought a declaration that the condition imposed by Wednesbury Corporation was unacceptable and beyond its legal authority.

This case was notable for establishing the principle of "Wednesbury unreasonableness." The case laid down a standard for courts to assess the legality of administrative decisions, particularly when they involve the exercise of discretionary powers.
The court's decision in this case highlighted that administrative bodies, when exercising discretionary powers, must act reasonably and within the boundaries of the authority granted by law.
The court set a high threshold for courts to intervene in administrative decisions, stating that a decision could only be quashed if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.

Defendant was empowered under legislation to allow cinemas to open on Sundays “subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose”.
He allowed Plaintiff’s cinema to open on Sunday provided that no children under 15 are admitted.
Plaintiff challenged the condition as ultra vires but CA held that the decision was not unlawful.

“If a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere. That, I think, is quite right; but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming” and this was not the case on the facts.
The question is not what the court considers unreasonable (that would be to substitute the judgment of the court for that of DM) but what no reasonable body would consider reasonable.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

Administrative Law	Discretion Fettering Notes (31 pages)
Administrative Law	Discretion Wednesbury Proportionality Notes (58 pages)
GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law	Grounds Of Review Notes (8 pages)
GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law	Unreasonableness And Irrationality Notes (5 pages)