82,985
edits
AP Picture Houses v Wednesbury: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}{{wednesbury nutshell}} | |||
A famous exigesis on the meaning, in law, of the word “[[reasonable]]”. It seems quaint now, but the action concerned whether a local authority could be said to be acting reasonably in prohibiting children under the age 15 to attend cinemas on Sunday. | A famous exigesis on the meaning, in law, of the word “[[reasonable]]”. It seems quaint now, but the action concerned whether a local authority could be said to be acting reasonably in prohibiting children under the age 15 to attend cinemas on Sunday. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
This seems arbitrary nowadays but the 1909 ''Cinematograph Act'' allowed cinemas to operate between Mondays and Saturdays but ''not at all'' on Sundays. Only the local neighbourhood commanding officer of military forces (this we must assume would have been a gentleman like Captain Mainwaring) could apply to the licensing authority to open a cinema on Sunday. | This seems arbitrary nowadays but the 1909 ''Cinematograph Act'' allowed cinemas to operate between Mondays and Saturdays but ''not at all'' on Sundays. Only the local neighbourhood commanding officer of military forces (this we must assume would have been a gentleman like Captain Mainwaring) could apply to the licensing authority to open a cinema on Sunday. | ||
This was 1909. But 1932, the world of cinematic entertainment had undergone profound change, and in that year — some 15 years before the material facts in the case — the ''Sunday Entertainments Act 1932'' permitted local authorities to licence Sunday opening for cinemas “subject to such conditions as the authority may think fit to impose”. | This was 1909. But 1932, the world of cinematic entertainment had undergone profound change, and in that year — some 15 years before the material facts in the case — the ''Sunday Entertainments Act 1932'' permitted local authorities to licence Sunday opening for cinemas “subject to such conditions as the authority may think fit to impose”, and without so much as a by-your-leave from anyone in the home guard. | ||
Associated Provincial Picture Houses sought a declaration that Wednesbury’s condition was unacceptable and outside the power of the Corporation to impose. | Associated Provincial Picture Houses sought a declaration that Wednesbury’s condition was unacceptable and outside the power of the Corporation to impose. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
In deciding that it did, Lord Greene MR had this to say: | In deciding that it did, Lord Greene MR had this to say: | ||
{{ | {{quote| | ||
For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting “unreasonably.” Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington L.J. in Short v. Poole Corporation | For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting “unreasonably.” Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington L.J. in ''Short v. Poole Corporation'' [1926] Ch 66, 90, 91 gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all these things run into one another. <br /> | ||
[...]<br /> | [...]<br /> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Ouch alert for that throwaway “...on matters of high public policy of this kind...” ''Dripping'' with sarcasm, don’t you think? | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}} | *{{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}} | ||
*[[ | *{{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd}} | ||
*[[Commercially reasonable manner]] | |||
*[[Reasonable]] | |||
*[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html judgment transcript] | *[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html judgment transcript] | ||