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

Facts

  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd (APPH) obtained a license from Wednesbury Corporation to operate a cinema on Sundays.
  • The license was granted under the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 and included a condition prohibiting children under 15 from attending Sunday performances.
  • APPH challenged the condition as being unreasonable and ultra vires, arguing that the Corporation had acted beyond its powers.
  • The central question was whether Wednesbury Corporation, in imposing this restriction, had acted within its statutory powers.

Issues

  1. Whether the condition imposed by Wednesbury Corporation prohibiting children under 15 from attending Sunday cinema performances was ultra vires or unreasonable under the powers granted by the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932.
  2. Whether the court could intervene in the exercise of administrative discretion where the decision is alleged to be unreasonable.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal, per Lord Greene MR, dismissed APPH's appeal.
  • It was held that the court's role was not to substitute its own judgment for that of the public authority regarding administrative decisions.
  • The court stated that interference is only justified if a decision is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it"—a standard that has become known as the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test.
  • The imposition of the age restriction was deemed not to meet this threshold, and the Corporation was found to have acted within its powers.

Legal Principles

  • The "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test restricts judicial intervention to administrative decisions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.
  • Judicial review focuses on the rationality of the decision-making process, not on its merits.
  • Wednesbury unreasonableness is distinct from other grounds of review such as illegality and procedural impropriety, targeting decisions that defy logic or accepted moral standards to an extreme degree.
  • Courts examine whether relevant considerations were taken into account and irrelevant ones excluded, but will not intervene based on mere disagreement with the decision.

Conclusion

The case established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test as a fundamental principle of administrative law, providing that courts may only overturn administrative decisions where they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed them, thereby delineating the boundaries of judicial review and maintaining a balance between judicial oversight and administrative discretion.

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