R v Environment Secretary ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1991] 1 AC 521

• The secretary of state had the power to “designate” and sanction LAs whose budgets were deemed excessive by him, by giving them less of a central govt grant.

• HL declined to interfere, saying that since what was “excessive” was a matter of political judgment, his actions were not open to challenge on grounds of irrationality short of bad faith, improper motive or manifest absurdity, none of which had been shown.

• What he deemed “unreasonable” was not open to challenge. 

Lord Bridge

• Provided that the purpose of the statute is not frustrated by a minister’s actions, then the economic policy of the minister is not open to challenge for irrationality “short of the extremes of bad faith, improper motive or manifest absurdity”.

• He says that “Both the constitutional propriety and the good sense of this restriction seem to me to be clear enough.”

  • This is deference because the courts are afraid of appearing to usurp the political judgment of the secretary of state.