Relevant and irrelevant considerations in decision-making
Overview: Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations in Decision-Making
In administrative law, decision-makers are required to take into account all relevant considerations and exclude irrelevant ones when making decisions under statutory powers. Failure to do so can render a decision unlawful, unreasonable, or ultra vires.
Relevant considerations: Factors that the law or the purpose of the statute requires or permits the decision-maker to consider.
Irrelevant considerations: Factors that should not influence the decision because they are outside the scope of the statute or have no bearing on the issue.
Courts scrutinize whether decision-makers properly identified and weighed relevant factors and disregarded irrelevant ones. This principle protects against arbitrariness and abuse of discretion.
Important Case Law Explaining Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts: The Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition on a cinema license, restricting children under 15. The licensee challenged the decision as unreasonable.
Principle: The famous "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test arose here, where the court said a decision is unlawful if the authority:
Takes into account irrelevant considerations,
Fails to take into account relevant considerations,
Or makes a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Relevance: This case sets the foundational test for judicial review based on improper consideration of factors.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40 (UK)
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without proper inquiry. The decision was challenged.
Principle: The House of Lords held that administrative decisions affecting rights must be based on relevant and lawful considerations, and procedural fairness is essential.
Relevance: Reinforces that ignoring relevant facts or relying on irrelevant ones breaches natural justice.
3. In re Fong Thin Choo, [1991] 2 AC 14 (Privy Council, Singapore)
Facts: The customs authority detained goods, alleging non-payment of duty but relied on irrelevant grounds.
Principle: The court held that decisions must be made by properly considering all relevant evidence and ignoring irrelevant factors.
Relevance: Confirms the need to focus only on statutory relevant considerations.
4. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson, [1997] AC 407 (UK)
Facts: The Home Secretary decided to set tariffs for young offenders based on public opinion polls.
Principle: The House of Lords ruled that the Home Secretary took into account an irrelevant consideration—public opinion—which was improper in this context.
Relevance: Demonstrates that subjective or unrelated factors like public opinion can be irrelevant and make a decision unlawful.
5. P & Q v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (1989) 169 CLR 245 (Australia)
Facts: Minister refused refugee status relying on irrelevant grounds not contemplated by statute.
Principle: The High Court of Australia emphasized the importance of focusing on factors expressly or impliedly required by statute and excluding irrelevant considerations.
Relevance: Highlights judicial intolerance for decision-makers’ failure to identify proper considerations.
6. Bangladesh Case: Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh, (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 89
Facts: Government made decisions on nationalization ignoring relevant statutory requirements.
Principle: The court held that decisions ignoring relevant statutory considerations are ultra vires.
Relevance: Demonstrates application of the doctrine in Bangladesh’s context.
7. Bangladesh Power Development Board v. Badrul Alam, 46 DLR (AD) 86 (1994)
Facts: Disciplinary action was taken ignoring mandatory procedural and substantive requirements.
Principle: Administrative authority must consider all relevant statutory factors and procedural safeguards.
Relevance: The court invalidated the decision for failure to consider relevant factors.
Summary of the Doctrine and Its Application
| Element | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant Considerations | Those factors the statute or law requires or permits decision-makers to consider. | Wednesbury, P & Q v. Minister |
| Irrelevant Considerations | Factors outside the scope or purpose of the statute that should be disregarded. | Venables and Thompson |
| Judicial Review | Courts assess if decision-makers properly identified and weighed relevant factors and excluded irrelevant ones. | Ridge v. Baldwin, Bangladesh Italian Marble |
| Consequences of Improper Consideration | Decisions can be quashed as ultra vires, unreasonable, or violating natural justice. | Bangladesh Power Dev. Board |
Practical Impact
Administrative decision-makers must be diligent in identifying relevant statutory factors.
Irrelevant considerations like personal bias, public opinion, or extraneous policy cannot influence decisions.
Courts act as guardians against arbitrary exercises of discretion.
Conclusion
The doctrine of relevant and irrelevant considerations is fundamental to administrative fairness and legality. It ensures that decisions are rational, lawful, and grounded in appropriate factors as prescribed by law. The cases above, both from common law jurisdictions and Bangladesh, emphasize courts' active role in scrutinizing administrative decisions to protect against illegality and abuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments