Home » Pictures » Associated Provincial Picture Houses V Wednesbury Corporation Case Summary

Associated Provincial Picture Houses V Wednesbury Corporation Case Summary

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation : CA 10 Nov 1947 References: [1947] 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, [1947] EWCA Civ 1, 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 [1986] AC 240 (HL).

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 v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].

It was not # Wednesbury unreasonable#: it was not so unreasonable that no authority could have come to it; RELATED CASE R v Chief Constable of Susx, ex p International Traders Ferry.

Show Summary Details.

Overview Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation.

Quick Reference (1948).

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) in The New Oxford Companion to Law Length: 560 words View all related items in Oxford Reference .

B.

The Wednesbury Case The Case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.

v.

Wednesbury Corp.

Introduction and synopsis of the case.

In modern days authorities both statutory and governmental # enjoy a wide range of discretionary powers.

This power is however, fettered by restraints.

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.

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.

Council of Civil Service Unions v #, Anisminic v Foreign Compens#, Entick v Carrington, R (Factortame Ltd) v Secassociated provincial picture houses v wednesbury corporation case summary