## Facts

- The case concerned the seizure of a factory under wartime emergency regulations.
- The seizure order was stated to be issued by the Commissioners of Works on behalf of the Minister of Works and Planning.
- The owner of the factory challenged the order, questioning whether the minister had personally authorised the action.
- The case raised fundamental questions about the exercise of ministerial powers and the necessity or otherwise of personal ministerial involvement.

## Issues

1. Whether a minister is required to personally exercise every power statutorily conferred upon them, or if such powers can be exercised by officials within their department.
2. Whether actions taken by civil servants within a minister’s office can be lawfully treated as actions of the minister.
3. What limits apply to the delegation of ministerial powers under administrative law.

## Decision

- The court held that it was not necessary for the minister personally to exercise every power granted to them by law.
- Actions taken by officials in a minister’s department are treated as acts of the minister, provided they are made under proper legal authority.
- Delegation of tasks to civil servants within the minister's office is lawful, reflecting the realities of large-scale government administration.
- The principle of ministerial responsibility requires ministers to answer to Parliament for the actions taken by their department.

## Legal Principles

- The Carltona principle permits civil servants to exercise powers conferred on a minister, treating such acts as those of the minister in law.
- Delegation is restricted to officials within the minister’s office unless legislation expressly permits delegation to outsiders.
- Officials exercising delegated powers must remain within the legal scope granted to the minister and may not sub-delegate unless specifically allowed.
- Ministerial accountability to Parliament remains central even where powers are exercised by officials.
- Later case law reinforced the need for clear legal authority and proper accountability in the exercise of delegated ministerial powers.

## Conclusion

The Carltona principle, as established by this case, supports the lawful delegation of ministerial powers to departmental officials, balancing efficient administrative operation with the continued accountability of ministers to Parliament. Its scope, while central to UK administrative law, continues to develop through subsequent judicial interpretation and changing governance structures.

Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560