Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

Facts

  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd sought a license from Wednesbury Corporation to open their cinema on Sundays.
  • Wednesbury Corporation, as the local authority, granted the license with a condition prohibiting children under 15 from attending Sunday performances, regardless of whether they were accompanied by an adult.
  • The claimant challenged the lawfulness of this condition, contending it was unreasonable.

Issues

  1. Whether Wednesbury Corporation had the legal power to attach such a condition to the Sunday cinema license.
  2. Whether the imposed condition was so unreasonable that it was unlawful, thereby justifying judicial intervention.
  3. What constitutes "unreasonableness" sufficient to invalidate an administrative decision.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the local authority had acted within its powers in imposing the condition forbidding children under 15 at Sunday performances.
  • The court established that only a decision "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it" would be subject to being overturned—a standard known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness."
  • It was determined that mere disagreement with the reasonableness of a decision was insufficient for judicial review.

Legal Principles

  • Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground for judicial review, requiring that a decision be irrational or absurd to the extreme that no reasonable authority could have made it.
  • Courts are limited from substituting their own judgment for that of the administrative authority unless faced with a decision far outside the bounds of reasonableness.
  • The doctrine has been illustrated in cases such as Short v Poole Corporation [1926] Ch 66 and Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, indicating its application to both hypothetical and actual administrative actions deemed absurd or financially reckless.
  • Subsequent legal developments, including the concept of proportionality and the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation, have refined and supplemented the Wednesbury standard, emphasizing fairness and a structured balance between individual rights and public interest.

Conclusion

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation set a significant benchmark in administrative law by establishing the narrow ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness for challenging administrative decisions, confining judicial review to cases of manifest irrationality and signaling ongoing development with related concepts such as proportionality and legitimate expectation.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal