Introduction
The principle of delegatus non potest delegare—that a delegate cannot further delegate—forms a basic rule in administrative law. This rule ensures powers given by Parliament are used by the intended body and prevents unchecked transfers of authority. Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18 demonstrates this rule, focusing on improper transfers of statutory powers. This case shows the need to follow legal frameworks and the risks of unauthorized transfers of decision-making. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Barnard clarified lawful delegation and defined boundaries for transferring statutory duties.
The Statutory Framework of the Dock Labour Scheme
The National Dock Labour Board, created under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947, had legal authority to discipline registered dock workers. This system aimed to regulate employment in the dock industry, ensuring fair practices. The Scheme outlined specific disciplinary steps, including suspension or dismissal for misconduct. This structure, set by Parliament, required the Board to directly handle disciplinary actions.
The Invalid Delegation in Barnard
In Barnard, the local board, a subsidiary of the National Dock Labour Board, gave suspension authority to a port manager. Mr. Barnard, a dock worker, was suspended by the port manager. The Court of Appeal examined whether this transfer was lawful. Could the local board, itself acting under delegated authority, pass its disciplinary powers to another party?
The Court of Appeal’s Ruling
The Court of Appeal ruled the local board’s transfer to the port manager was unlawful. The Court held that disciplinary powers given to the local board required collective judgment and could not be handed to one person. Transferring this power bypassed the legal process. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions significantly affected workers and required review by the designated group, not an individual. This decision confirmed statutory powers impacting individual rights must be exercised only by the authorized body.
Impact on Administrative Law
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board defined strict boundaries for delegated powers. The case distinguished between lawful administrative support and unlawful transfers of core decision-making. While staff may assist in preparing or implementing decisions, final authority must remain with the designated body. This distinction ensures accountability and prevents weakening legal safeguards.
Comparing Barnard to Permitted Delegation
Barnard differs from situations where delegation is explicitly allowed by law or necessary for practical operation. Parliament may authorize a body to delegate powers, either broadly or under specific terms. Routine administrative tasks may also require delegation. However, such transfers cannot apply to core statutory duties like those affecting individual rights, as in Barnard. The case affirms that delegation must follow explicit statutory terms if intended by Parliament.
Conclusion
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board remains a central case in administrative law, defining delegation limits. The Court of Appeal held that statutory powers with major impacts on individuals cannot be transferred without clear legal authority or operational necessity limited to routine tasks. The ruling stresses adherence to legal frameworks for exercising public powers and reinforces delegatus non potest delegare as a core rule, preventing misuse of authority and protecting rights. This case continues to guide judicial review of administrative decisions, balancing governance efficiency with legal accountability. The principles from Barnard shape how courts assess delegation and ensure statutory powers are used only by authorized bodies.
