83,012
edits
AP Picture Houses v Wednesbury: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
I think ''[counsel for APPH]'' Mr. Gallop in the end agreed that his proposition that the decision of the local authority can be upset if it is proved to be unreasonable, really meant that '''''it must be proved to be unreasonable in the sense that the court considers it to be a decision that no reasonable body could have come to'''''. It is not what the court considers unreasonable, a different thing altogether. If it is what the court considers unreasonable, the court may very well have different views to that of a local authority on matters of high public policy of this kind. Some courts might think that no children ought to be admitted on Sundays at all, some courts might think the reverse, and all over the country I have no doubt on a thing of that sort honest and sincere people hold different views. The effect of the legislation is not to set up the court as an arbiter of the correctness of one view over another. It is the local authority that are set in that position and, provided they act, as they have acted, within the four corners of their jurisdiction, this court, in my opinion, cannot interfere. | I think ''[counsel for APPH]'' Mr. Gallop in the end agreed that his proposition that the decision of the local authority can be upset if it is proved to be unreasonable, really meant that '''''it must be proved to be unreasonable in the sense that the court considers it to be a decision that no reasonable body could have come to'''''. It is not what the court considers unreasonable, a different thing altogether. If it is what the court considers unreasonable, the court may very well have different views to that of a local authority on matters of high public policy of this kind. Some courts might think that no children ought to be admitted on Sundays at all, some courts might think the reverse, and all over the country I have no doubt on a thing of that sort honest and sincere people hold different views. The effect of the legislation is not to set up the court as an arbiter of the correctness of one view over another. It is the local authority that are set in that position and, provided they act, as they have acted, within the four corners of their jurisdiction, this court, in my opinion, cannot interfere. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Nutshell}} | |||
A decision will not be reasonable if in making it: | |||
*the decisionmaker considered factors that it should not have considered, or | |||
*the decisionmaker did not consider factors it should have considered, or | |||
*the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decisionmaker would ever consider making it. | |||
===See Also=== | ===See Also=== | ||