## Facts

- Mr. Kennedy requested information from the Charity Commission regarding its investigations into the Mariam Appeal, a charity he formerly chaired.
- The Charity Commission refused Mr. Kennedy’s requests based on exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- Mr. Kennedy challenged the refusal, arguing that the exemptions were improperly applied.

## Issues

1. Whether the Charity Commission’s refusal to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was lawful.
2. Whether the traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness standard or the principle of proportionality should govern the judicial review of the Commission’s decision.
3. How the intensity and scope of judicial review should adjust to the context of administrative decisions, especially where individual rights may be affected.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court clarified that Wednesbury unreasonableness is not a rigid standard but covers a spectrum of review intensities, suited to the context of the case.
- It reaffirmed that Wednesbury remains the primary standard outside fundamental rights or EU law, but recognized proportionality’s growing influence in administrative review.
- The Court observed a potential "convergence" between the more intensive application of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality in certain contexts.
- The judgment did not discard Wednesbury unreasonableness but acknowledged its flexibility and the overlap with proportionality, especially in cases involving significant individual interests.

## Legal Principles

- Wednesbury unreasonableness refers to a decision so illogical or morally outrageous that no reasonable authority could have reached it, but courts may apply a sliding scale of intensity depending on the case.
- Proportionality, particularly relevant in EU law and Human Rights Act matters, requires structured balancing of aims and rights, and is increasingly influential in UK administrative law.
- The intensity of judicial review is context-dependent, with courts able to apply heightened scrutiny in cases with substantial implications for individual rights.
- There is increasing recognition of the overlap between rigorous Wednesbury review and proportionality analysis, though Wednesbury remains formally operative in the majority of administrative review cases.

## Conclusion

Kennedy v Charity Commission clarified the flexible nature of Wednesbury unreasonableness and its relationship with proportionality, granting courts greater flexibility in reviewing administrative decisions and shaping the future approach to judicial review in UK administrative law.


Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20