The principle of reasonableness in administrative decision-making
The Principle of Reasonableness in Administrative Decision-Making
Overview
The principle of reasonableness is a fundamental doctrine in administrative law that requires decisions made by administrative authorities to be rational, fair, and not arbitrary or capricious. It ensures that administrative bodies do not abuse their power and that their decisions are made based on relevant considerations and evidence.
This principle often overlaps with the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard (originating in UK law but influential globally), which allows courts to review administrative decisions to ensure they are not so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing them.
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
The Wednesbury Corporation granted a cinema license with a condition restricting admission to children under 15 on Sundays. The cinema challenged this, arguing the condition was unreasonable.
Holding:
The Court established the test for administrative unreasonableness.
Reasoning:
Lord Greene MR held that a decision would be unreasonable if it was “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”
The Court emphasized a high threshold for unreasonableness; courts should not interfere merely because they disagree with the decision.
The decision must be irrational or perverse to be set aside.
Importance:
This case created the “Wednesbury test”, which is the foundational standard for assessing reasonableness.
It balances judicial restraint with the need to prevent arbitrary administrative actions.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Facts:
Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without a hearing for alleged misconduct.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unreasonable because the decision-maker failed to provide a fair hearing.
Reasoning:
The decision lacked procedural fairness, which is part of reasonableness.
The case emphasized that reasonableness includes fairness and due process.
Arbitrary decisions without giving a party a chance to respond are unreasonable.
Importance:
Established that reasonableness involves procedural fairness, not just substantive rationality.
Strengthened natural justice principles in administrative decisions.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case) (1985)
Facts:
The government banned trade union membership at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) citing national security without consulting employees.
Holding:
The House of Lords recognized grounds for judicial review, including reasonableness, but upheld the ban due to national security.
Reasoning:
The Court distinguished between procedural fairness and substantive reasonableness.
While national security justified the decision, it confirmed that administrative decisions must generally be reasonable.
Introduced the concept of proportionality as part of reasonableness in some contexts.
Importance:
Demonstrated that reasonableness can be context-dependent.
Highlighted the need to balance competing interests while maintaining reasonableness.
4. Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977)
Facts:
The Secretary of State revoked local education authority policies after disagreements on school curricula.
Holding:
The Court held the Secretary of State’s decision was unreasonable because it ignored relevant evidence and failed to consider all factors.
Reasoning:
The decision was irrational because it ignored crucial information and acted without logical basis.
Reasonableness includes taking into account all relevant considerations.
Decisions based on irrelevant or no considerations are unreasonable.
Importance:
Reinforced the idea that administrative decisions must be based on logical and relevant grounds.
Expanded the substantive scope of reasonableness.
5. Associated Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (Detailed)
I already mentioned Wednesbury briefly but it merits deeper explanation here.
The principle set is often paraphrased as "no reasonable authority could have made the decision."
The Court recognized that courts do not substitute their judgment but check for extremes.
It protects administrative discretion but curtails decisions that are arbitrary, perverse, or absurd.
6. Bolton v. Stone (1951) — (Reasonableness in Tort but influential)
Though a tort case, it’s influential on reasonableness in administrative contexts.
Facts:
A cricket ball hit from a cricket ground injured a passerby outside the boundary.
Holding:
The court held the cricket club was not liable because the risk was so small it was reasonable for the club to continue.
Importance:
Demonstrates the balancing of risk and reasonableness.
Analogous to administrative decisions balancing risk, policy, and fairness.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Holding | Principle Related to Reasonableness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | 1948 | Decision unreasonable if no reasonable authority could make it | High threshold for unreasonableness (Wednesbury test) |
| Ridge v. Baldwin | 1964 | Unreasonable dismissal without hearing | Reasonableness includes procedural fairness |
| Council of Civil Service Unions (GCHQ) | 1985 | National security justified but reasonableness is contextual | Balancing interests, proportionality |
| Secretary of State v. Tameside | 1977 | Ignoring relevant evidence makes a decision unreasonable | Consideration of all relevant factors required |
| Bolton v. Stone (Tort) | 1951 | Reasonable risk-taking can avoid liability | Balancing risk and reasonableness |
Overall Explanation
The principle of reasonableness ensures administrative bodies do not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
It is a key ground for judicial review.
The Wednesbury test remains central but has evolved to include considerations of fairness, proportionality, and relevance.
Reasonableness requires decision-makers to consider all relevant factors, provide fair procedures, and avoid decisions no rational person could make.
RELATED Blog
0 comments