One of the common law grounds of judicial review of administrative action, as formulated in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223 (CA).
The term denotes behaviour on the part of a public authority that is particularly perverse or absurd (R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council  AC 240 (HL).
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] Facts The Wednesbury Corporation decided to open cinemas on Sunday to those 15 or over only, Essential Cases : Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments.
This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal.
The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation : CA 10 Nov 1947 References:  2 All ER 680, [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223, 1947 WL 10584, ( 1948 ) 92 SJ 26, [ 1948 ] LJR 190, [ 1948 ] 45 LGR 635, ( 1948 ) 112 JP 55, 63 TLR 623,  EWCA Civ 1, 10/11/1947 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [ 1948 ] 1 K.
223 (10 November 1947) Practical Law Case Page D-000-5591 (Approx.
1 page) Ask a question, It is couched in language reminiscent of the traditional Wednesbury ground of review ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.
Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] I KB 223), and in particular the adaptation of that test in terms of heightened scrutiny in cases involving fundamental rights #.
There is a material difference between the.
09/03/2015 And if #he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting #unreasonably ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1.
A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation ( 1948 ) 1 KB 223).
The test is a different (and stricter) test than merely showing that the decision was unreasonable.
Council of Civil Service Unions v #, Anisminic v Foreign Compens#, Entick v Carrington, R (Factortame Ltd) v Sec