Talk:Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

General article on Wednesbury unreasonableness[edit]

Right now, Wednesbury unreasonableness just redirects to this article about the case. As the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness isn't just about this case (future cases have built on it like in GCHQ [1984] where Lord Diplock referred to it as "irrationality", etc.), and so I think it deserves its own article. There is already an article for Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law which does a good job - but we need one from a more international perspective (e.g. including perspectives on English law and how it is now being increasingly challenged/replaced with the doctrine of proportionality).

As of now, as both articles are merged, I will put the Administrative Law infobox in this article.

Trolligarch (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened Next?[edit]

It would be interesting to have some information on the long term consequences for the cinema following this judgement. Did Wednesbury Council ever change their decision? Did any of Wednesbury's successor councils ever change the decision? Is the cinema still operational? If not, did the ruling have any influence on the decision to close the cinema?

Super Slush (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some criticisms[edit]

I have changed the reference to English courts citing this case to UK courts. I am minded to alter the article further to elaborate that, whilst not binding in Scotland per se, the ruling has been followed north of the border and is certainly now incorporated by a long line of authority into Scots law.

I am also somewhat concerned that the explanation of the ratio of the case is somewhat misleading. It is true that Wednesbury is referred to by the courts as authority for the proposition that only peculiarly unreasonable decisions will face judicial sanction. However, it would be more accurate to state that the case is cited as the leading authority which establishes that the judiciary may interfere with the decisions of administrative bodies on the basis of their substance. It is secondary to this that the ruling defines the scope of that judicial power to be restricted to cases of only the utmost unreasonableness.

Antisthenes 17:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the lead text to reflect that point, but I'm not sure how to adjust the "Use of this case" section accordingly. Please, be bold. :-) Ruakh 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replica plane case?[edit]

i have not edited anything but i've come on here looking for the citation to the case in which a guy had a replica plane in his back garden, is this not a leading case on this subject? could maybe be used to illustrate the point? i'm not sure at all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.185.114.93 (talk • contribs).

Social and political context?[edit]

Something about the social and political context of the case might be useful - I could perhaps do something if it was thought to be an advantage.--Peakcrew 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, please do. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]