Irrationality as a ground of review
Irrationality as a Ground of Review
What is Irrationality in Administrative Law?
Irrationality refers to administrative decisions that are so unreasonable or illogical that no reasonable authority could have made them. This ground allows courts to invalidate agency actions that defy logic, disregard relevant evidence, or lack any rational basis.
Irrationality is often used interchangeably with the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard, especially in common law jurisdictions, originating from a seminal English case.
Why is Irrationality a Ground of Review?
To prevent arbitrary or capricious decision-making by administrative agencies.
To uphold fairness, legality, and reasoned decision-making.
To ensure decisions are based on relevant factors and not on irrelevant or improper considerations.
To preserve public confidence in administrative justice.
Standards of Irrationality
The decision must be so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it.
Courts usually exercise restraint and will not substitute their own judgment but intervene when the decision is manifestly unreasonable.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Irrationality as a Ground of Review
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: A cinema license was conditioned to prohibit children under 15 from attending on Sundays.
Holding: The Court held that a decision would be unreasonable if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Significance: Established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test as a classic standard of irrationality.
Impact: This remains the foundational case for irrationality review—courts will not interfere unless the decision is outrageous or absurd.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bugdaycay (1987)
Facts: The Home Secretary’s decision to deport a refugee without hearing him was challenged.
Holding: The Court emphasized that decisions must be logical and based on proper evidence, and irrationality can be found if the decision is perverse or lacks rational basis.
Significance: Expanded on the idea of irrationality to include decisions that are perverse or illogical.
Impact: Courts assess whether the decision is justifiable and rational.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case)
Facts: The government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions.
Holding: The Court recognized irrationality as a ground of review but held the decision was not irrational because it was justified on national security grounds.
Significance: Reaffirmed that irrationality is a high threshold to meet.
Impact: Even significant government actions are reviewed for rationality, but courts respect legitimate reasons such as security.
4. R. (on the application of Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts: Prison policy allowing searching of legal correspondence was challenged.
Holding: The Court held that the policy was irrational because it disproportionately infringed on prisoners' rights.
Significance: Showed irrationality in balancing competing interests and rights.
Impact: Irrationality grounds extend to proportionality and human rights considerations.
5. R. (on the application of Begum) v. Denbigh High School (2006)
Facts: A Muslim girl was denied permission to wear a jilbab (long dress) at school.
Holding: The Court held that the school's decision was not irrational as it was reasonable and proportionate.
Significance: Emphasized judicial restraint and deference to reasonable administrative decisions.
Impact: Courts balance reasonableness and social context in irrationality reviews.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury | 1948 | Established standard for irrationality | Defined "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test |
| R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay | 1987 | Perverse and illogical decisions | Expanded irrationality to include perverse decisions |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service | 1985 | Government action & irrationality | Irrationality is high threshold; national security justified action |
| R (Daly) v. Secretary of State | 2001 | Prison policy & proportionality | Irrationality includes disproportionate infringement |
| R (Begum) v. Denbigh High School | 2006 | School dress code & reasonableness | Deference to reasonable administrative decisions |
Conclusion
Irrationality as a ground of judicial review serves as a critical check on administrative agencies to prevent decisions that are arbitrary, illogical, or lacking any reasonable foundation. While courts show restraint and respect agency expertise, they will intervene when decisions are manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate, protecting fairness and legality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments