Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T20:24:28.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Review of Improper Purposes and Irrelevant Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

G. D. S. Taylor
Get access

Extract

Control of the abuse of discretion is arguably the central and most controversial part of judicial review of administrative action. Within abuse of discretion, review of improper purposes is probably the most difficult ground to define and expound. It is not seen easily as a separate and unique concept. There is no clear approach to it as a mechanism of review. On the other hand, review for the consideration of irrelevant factors appears to offer greater certainty. There has been, therefore, a tendency to bring both grounds together in terms of the latter. As a result, the line between improper purposes and irrelevant considerations has become blurred, and often they are seen as identical. A number of questions arise from this. Are the two grounds of review different? What is their content? How are they to be manipulated? Is the apparently expansive import of Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a significant development? If so, is it a shift in the right direction? Problems in review for abuse of discretion stem from several sources. The problems compound one another in a context of limited legal structures and judicial analysis. Abuse of discretion is too easily regarded as a “grab-bag” from which a ground of review can always be found to suit the conclusion sought to be reached on the merits. Judicial review is a flexible tool but each ground has a limited use. “Improper purposes” and “irrelevant factors” exist as distinct phrases because each represents a separate mode of analysis which is particularly useful in a given situation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , November 1976 , pp. 272 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Throughout this article the word “factors” is used rather than “considerations.” This is purely for reasons of clarity. Also, the “consideration of irrelevant factors” includes the “failure to consider relevant factors” unless the context indicates otherwise.

2 Thus, in Hanks v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 Q.B. 999Google Scholar, 1020, Megaw J. stated that the distinction was verbal and not one of substance.

3 [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.).

4 See Farmer, J. A. and Evans, P. J., “Two Criticisms of Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture” [1970]Google Scholar N.Z.L.J. 184.

5 See Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147Google Scholar (H.L.), 171 per Lord Reid.

6 See the ambiguous definitions of Bagallay L.J. in Gard v. London City Sewers Commissioners (1883) 28 Ch.D. 486 (C.A.), 507 and Lord Sumner in Roberts v. Hopwood [1925]Google Scholar A.C. 578 (H.L.), 604.

7 e.g., Roberts v. Hopwood, above, 606 per Lord Sumner.

8 See D. R. Fraser and Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue [1949]Google Scholar A.C. 24 (J.C.), 36.

9 [1958] 1 Q.B. 554 (C.A.), 572.

10 [1961] A.C. 636 (H.L.).

11 Ibid., 684–685.

12 de Smith, S. A., “Judicial Review and Administrative Discretionary Powers” (1972) 35 M.L.R. 415, 417.Google Scholar

13 [1954] 1 W.L.R. 485 (Q.B.D., D.C.).

14 See also Williams v. Giddy [1911]Google Scholar A.C. 381 (J.C.).

15 (1950) 81 C.L.R. 108 (F.C.).

16 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesday Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223Google Scholar (C.A.), 229.

17 Williams v. Melbourne Corporation (1933) 49 C.L.R. 142Google Scholar (F.C.), 154 per Dixon J.

18 R. v. Birmingham Licensing Planning Committee, ex p. Kennedy [1972] 2 Q.B. 140Google Scholar (C.A.), 149.

19 [1925] A.C. 578 (H.L.).

20 See pp. 281–283 below.

21 e.g., Yukich v. Sinclair [1961]Google Scholar N.Z.L.R. 752.

22 e.g., Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147Google Scholar (H.L.).

23 e.g., Sydney Municipal Council v. Campbell [1925]Google Scholar A.C. 338 (J.C.).

24 e.g., Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]Google Scholar A.C. 997 (H.L.).

25 e.g., Victorian Railways Commissioners v. McCartney (1935) 52 C.L.R. 383Google Scholar (F.C.).

26 e.g., Padfield's case, above.

27 e.g., Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley Borough Council [1971]Google Scholar A.C. 508 (H.L.).

28 Ibid., and Campbell's case, above.

29 R. v. Metropolitan Goods Vehicles Licensing Authority, ex p. B. E. Barrett Ltd. [1949] 2 K.B. 17Google Scholar (D.C.) and Pilling v. Abergele Urban District Council [1950] 1 K.B. 636Google Scholar (D.C.).

30 Licensing Amendment Act (No. 2) 1953, s. 24 (1) (N.Z.) in issue in Yukich v. Sinclair [1961]Google Scholar N.Z.L.R. 752.

31 Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Determination and Registration of Claims) Order 1962, art. 4 (1) (U.K.) in issue in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147Google Scholar (H.L.).

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 209–210.

34 [1961] N.Z.L.R. 752.

35 Set out in text above pp. 277–278.

36 (1937) 58 C.L.R. 299 (F.C.).

37 [1969] 2 A.C. 147 (H.L.).

38 See Wade, H. W. R., “Constitutional and Administrative Aspects of the Anisminic Case” (1969) 85 L.Q.R. 198, 211–212Google Scholar and Smillie, J. A., “Jurisdic-tional Review of Abuse of Discretionary Power” (1969) 47 Can. Bar Rev. 623Google Scholar, 638–639.

39 Set out in text above p. 278.

40 [1969] 2 A.C. at 201. See also Lord Pearce at 194–195, Lord Reid at 174, Lord Wilberforce at 214, Lord Pearson at 215, and Browne J. at 254–255.

41 [1957] 1 Q.B. 574 (C.A.).

42 [1952] 1 K.B. 338 (C.A.).

43 [1955] V.L.R. 156.

44 (1962) 80 W.N. (N.S.W.) 572 (F.C.).

45 Lord Morris in Anisminic, above, 193.

46 [1959] A.C. 663 (H.L.), 693–695.

47 [1970] V.R. 214.

48 (1956) 57 S.R.(N.S.W.) 554 (F.C.).

49 (1956) 97 C.L.R. 681.

50 [1971] 1 W.L.R. 433 (C.A.).

51 R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. [1922] 2 A.C. 128Google Scholar (J.C.).

52 “Evidence and Ultra Vires” (1971) 87 L.Q.R. 318, 319.Google Scholar

53 See, e.g., Re Bowman, South Shields (Thames Street) Clearance Order 1931 [1932] 2 K.B. 621, 634–635.Google Scholar

54 See p. 289 below.

55 e.g., Attorney-General v. Tynemouth Poor Law Guardians [1930] 1 Ch. 616.Google Scholar

56 e.g., Roberts v. Hopwood [1925]Google Scholar A.C. 578 (H.L.) (a councillor), Webb v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 W.L.R. 755Google Scholar (C.A.) (the engineer who drew the plans).

57 Robert Baird Ltd. v. Glasgow Corporation [1936]Google Scholar A.C. 32 (H.L.), 42–43 per Lord Tomlin.

58 e.g., Earl Fitzwilliam's Wentworth Estates Co. Ltd. v. Minister of Town and Country Planning [1951] 2 K.B. 284Google Scholar (C.A.) (a pamphlet).

59 e.g., Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]Google Scholar A.C. 997 (H.L.), 1032–1033 per Lord Reid, 1053–1054 per Lord Pearce; and R. v. Brixton Prison Governor, ex p. Soblen [1963] 2 Q.B. 243Google Scholar (C.A.), 302 per Lord Denning M.R.

60 e.g., Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley Borough Council [1971]Google Scholar A.C. 508 (H.L.) (a recent central government circular on the reimbursement for compensation paid in road widening); Sydney Municipal Council v. Campbell [1925]Google Scholar A.C. 338 (J.C.) (where the council repeated a resolution, which had just been struck down, without giving new reasons); and Werribee Shire Council v. Kerr (1928) 42 C.L.R. 1Google Scholar (F.C.) (land compulsorily acquired immediately after a request by the federal government).

61 Thompson v. Randwick Corporation (1950) 81 C.L.R. 87Google Scholar (F.C.) (land untouched or barely touched by proposed road acquired in toto.)

62 Baldwin and Francis Ltd. v. Patents Appeal Tribunal [1959]Google Scholar A.C. 663 (H.L.), 638 per Lord Morton.

63 e.g., Marshall v. Blackpool Corporation [1935]Google Scholar A.C. 16 (H.L.), 23 per Lord Atkin.

64 e.g., Pilling v. Abergele Urban District Council [1950] 1 K.B. 636Google Scholar (D.C.), 638.

65 (1935) 52 C.L.R. 383 (F.C.).

66 Ibid., 391 per Rich and Dixon JJ.

67 [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.) especially 1030 per Lord Reid.

68 [1955] Ch. 210 (C.A.).

69 Padfield's case, above, 1030.

70 See pp. 283–284 above.

71 [1905] A.C. 426 (H.L.).

72 Ibid., 431.

73 Ibid., 437.

74 (1885) 32 Ch.D. 72 (C.A.).

75 Thompson v. Randwick Corporation (1950) 81 C.L.R. 87Google Scholar (F.C.) and Gard v. London City Sewers Commissioners (1883) 28 Ch.D. 486 (C.A.).

76 [1972] Ch. 12 (C.A.).

77 Ibid., 37.

78 [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.).

79 Ibid., 1049 per Lord Hodson, 1055 per Lord Pearce, 1062 per Lord Upjohn.

80 Ibid., 1031 per Lord Reid, 1049 per Lord Hodson, 1055 per Lord Pearce, and 1059–1060 per Lord Upjohn.

81 Ibid., 1031–1032 per Lord Reid, 1055 per Lord Pearce, and 1060 per Lord Upjohn.

82 Ibid., 1032 per Lord Reid, 1049 per Lord Hodson and 1061 per Lord Upjohn.

83 Ibid., 1032–1033 per Lord Reid and 1053 per Lord Pearce.

84 (1910) 11 C.L.R. 100 (F.C.).

85 Ibid., 111–112 per O'Connor J. and 118 per Isaacs J.

86 Ibid., 108 per Griffith C.J. and 112 per O'Connor J. (Isaacs J. agreeing).

87 Ibid., 112 per O'Connor J. See also 107 per Griffith C.J. (Isaacs J. agreeing).

88 See pp. 283–284 below.

89 [1905] A.C. 426 (H.L.), 427.

90 Roberts v. Hopwood [1925]Google Scholar A.C. 579 (H.L.), 607 per Lord Sumner.

91 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223Google Scholar (C.A.), 228, 231 per Lord Greene M.R.

92 See S. A. de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd ed.), 287–289.

93 See Hanks v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 Q.B. 999Google Scholar, 1020.

94 See Randell v. Northcote Corporation (1910) 11 C.L.R. 100Google Scholar (F.C.), 113 per O'Connor J.

95 Ibid.

96 See p. 284 above.

97 Earl Fitzwilliam's Wentworth Estates Co. Ltd. v. Minister of Town and Country Planning [1951] 2 K.B. 284Google Scholar (C.A.).

98 Ibid., 297–298 per Somervell L.J. and 299–300 per Singleton L.J.