Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The test laid down in this case, in all three limbs, is known as "the Wednesbury test". The term " Wednesbury unreasonableness" is used to describe the third limb, of being so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have decided that way.
Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed by the High Court. This type of unreasonableness of public body decisions was laid down in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v.
Wednesbury Corporation (1947), [9] the High Court had introduced the idea of Wednesbury unreasonableness, that is, a public authority's decision is unlawful if, although they have "kept within the four corners of the matters they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ...
In this type of case, which involves a change of policy by the authority, [66] the court can only review the decision on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness. [67] In other words, it will determine if the decision was rational and whether the authority gave proper weight to the implications of not fulfilling the promise. [64]
Basic Wednesbury unreasonableness In addition to the articulation of the test in the GCHQ case mentioned above, in Devon County Council v. George (1988) [ 144 ] the House of Lords described a Wednesbury -unreasonable decision as one that elicits the exclamation "my goodness, that is certainly wrong".
The ensuing madness was one of the wilder and weirder stories in NFL lore — part who done it, part high-paid legal drama, part science lesson, part Rorschach test, part character assassination ...
Lord Justice Brown elaborated that for the third category, there is "a margin of appreciation within which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process", subject to Wednesbury unreasonableness. [5] The Singapore case of City Developments Ltd. v. Chief Assessor (2008) [6] illustrates a ...
The Troubled-Teen Industry Has Been A Disaster For Decades. It's Still Not Fixed.