Wednesbury Unreasonableness
A Cornerstone of Judicial Review
Background: A Local Cinema and a Legal Legacy
The term Wednesbury Unreasonableness originates from a now-famous English legal case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
At the heart of the case was a local council’s decision to grant a cinema licence with a condition attached: that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays, regardless of whether they were accompanied by an adult. The cinema company challenged this restriction, arguing it was unreasonable and beyond the council’s powers.
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Greene MR, ruled that the decision was not unlawful. However, in doing so, the court clarified the limits of judicial intervention into administrative decisions. This case has since become a fundamental part of public law, shaping how courts assess the reasonableness of decisions made by public authorities.
The Three Limbs of Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Lord Greene’s judgment set out the test now known as Wednesbury unreasonableness. A decision will only be considered unlawful on this ground if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. Over time, this has been distilled into three core principles, or "limbs":
1. Taking into account irrelevant considerations
A public body must not base its decision on factors that should have no bearing on the matter. For example, a licensing authority deciding on a pub’s opening hours should not take into account the owner's political beliefs.
2. Failing to take into account relevant considerations
Equally, a decision may be unreasonable if a public authority fails to consider factors that are legally relevant or materially important. For instance, if a local council ignores evidence of significant environmental harm in a planning application, its decision may be flawed.
3. A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
This is the most well-known and stringent limb. A decision must be more than just wrong—it must be outrageously defiant of logic or accepted moral standards. Courts have used expressions like “irrational” or “perverse” to describe such outcomes.
This third limb sets a very high bar. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with administrative discretion unless the decision falls clearly outside the bounds of reasonableness.
Who Does Wednesbury Unreasonableness Apply To?
This principle applies specifically to public bodies and decision-makers exercising statutory powers or duties. These include:
- Local authorities and councils
- Government ministers and departments
- Regulatory agencies (e.g. Environment Agency, Ofcom, MHRA)
- NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups
- Planning and licensing bodies
- Educational authorities and public service boards
It does not apply to private companies or individuals unless they are acting in a public capacity or under statutory obligations. It also doesn't assess the merits of a decision—only whether the decision was made lawfully and reasonably within the legal framework.
Modern Developments: Is Wednesbury Still Relevant?
While the test has been criticised for being overly deferential, it remains a crucial part of judicial review - the process by which courts scrutinise the legality of public decisions. In recent years, courts have introduced the concept of proportionality, especially in cases involving human rights or EU law. Proportionality provides a more structured and potentially stricter approach than Wednesbury, but the latter still applies in many domestic administrative decisions.
In Summary
Wednesbury Unreasonableness has become a legal shorthand for challenging the irrational exercise of public power. Its three limbs ensure that public bodies act within their legal bounds, make decisions based on relevant information, and avoid outcomes that defy reason. Though courts remain cautious not to overstep their constitutional role, this principle remains a vital safeguard in maintaining fair and lawful public administration.
