## 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.


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