Ivor Jennings’ Definition of Administrative Law
Ivor Jennings’ Definition of Administrative Law
Ivor Jennings, a renowned British constitutional lawyer, defined Administrative Law as:
“The body of legal rules which regulate the exercise of powers and functions by administrative authorities.”
In simpler terms, administrative law governs the activities of government agencies and officials. It ensures that these bodies act within their legal authority, follow fair procedures, and protect individual rights against misuse or abuse of power.
Jennings emphasized that administrative law is essential for controlling governmental discretion—making sure public administration is accountable, transparent, and subject to legal limits.
Key Elements of Administrative Law According to Jennings:
Regulation of Powers: It defines the scope of powers of administrative authorities.
Legal Control: It provides mechanisms to challenge unlawful actions.
Protection of Rights: It safeguards individual rights from arbitrary administrative action.
Procedural Fairness: Ensures due process in administrative decisions.
Accountability: Authorities are answerable to the law and the public.
Landmark Case Laws Illustrating Jennings’ Administrative Law Principles
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Issue: The question was about the extent to which courts can interfere with administrative decisions.
Facts: Wednesbury Corporation refused to grant a cinema license for Sunday screenings except for children under 15. The cinema company challenged this.
Principle: The court established the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” — an administrative decision can only be quashed if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it.
Importance: It set the standard for judicial review of administrative decisions, limiting interference unless decisions are irrational or ultra vires (beyond powers).
2. Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
Issue: Whether a public authority must follow principles of natural justice (fair procedure) before taking punitive action.
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without a hearing. He challenged his dismissal.
Principle: The House of Lords held that natural justice must be observed by administrative bodies. Ridge’s dismissal was unlawful because he was not given a chance to defend himself.
Importance: Reinforced procedural fairness as a fundamental administrative law principle.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (also known as the GCHQ case)
Issue: Can the government make decisions without consulting employees when national security is involved?
Facts: The government banned trade unions at GCHQ without consultation.
Principle: The court recognized judicial review over executive decisions but also acknowledged that some decisions could be exempt due to national security.
Importance: Balanced rule of law with executive discretion in sensitive matters.
4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Issue: Whether a decision-maker’s error of law invalidates their decision.
Facts: The Foreign Compensation Commission made a decision that Anisminic claimed was legally wrong.
Principle: The House of Lords ruled that an error of law by an administrative body makes its decision void and open to judicial review, even if statutory clauses purported to exclude review.
Importance: Significantly widened the scope of judicial review and reduced attempts by statutes to shield administrative decisions.
5. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968)
Issue: Whether the Minister can refuse to refer a complaint for investigation without reasonable grounds.
Facts: Farmers complained about milk marketing board’s unfair practices. The Minister refused to investigate.
Principle: The court held that discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily, and if the law provides for a complaint to be investigated, refusal without good reason is unlawful.
Importance: Emphasized that discretion must serve the purpose of the statute.
Summary
Ivor Jennings' definition highlights administrative law as the control system over government action to ensure legality, fairness, and justice. The cases above demonstrate how courts apply these principles:
Wednesbury: Limits on judicial intervention.
Ridge v Baldwin: Necessity of procedural fairness.
GCHQ: Judicial review balanced with executive discretion.
Anisminic: Scope of review including errors of law.
Padfield: Proper exercise of administrative discretion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments