header-logo header-logo

Grounds for debate

19 September 2018 / Ayesha Riaz
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Is Wednesbury unreasonableness being overtaken by the upcoming ground of proportionality? Ayesha Riaz reports

  • An examination of the topical debate between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality and whether Wednesbury unreasonableness is being overtaken by the upcoming ground of proportionality.
  • The degree of judicial intervention when applying the Wednesbury threshold is far lower than proportionality.

Despite the fact that both grounds for Judicial Review originate from distinct jurisprudential backgrounds—one from the English common law, the other from European human rights law— it is not uncommon for similarities to be drawn between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality. The article seeks to explore the two grounds and then to analyse the differences between them.

What is the Wednesbury test?

This Wednesbury or irrationality test was developed in the seminal case of Associated Provincial Press Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1984] 1KB 223, and the threshold for unreasonableness is articulated by Lord Diplock in this very case as action 'so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll