82,891
edits
AP Picture Houses v Wednesbury: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 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 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'' [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 /> | 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 /> | ||
| 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] | ||