Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 (HL)

Facts

  • The Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 created a milk marketing scheme with a committee to review complaints.
  • Mr. Padfield, a milk producer in the South-Eastern region, challenged the disparity in milk prices compared to other regions.
  • He requested the Minister of Agriculture to refer his complaint to the committee; the Minister refused, citing potential negative political consequences if the committee supported the complaint.
  • The Minister's refusal led Mr. Padfield to initiate legal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Minister’s refusal to refer the complaint to the committee, based on political considerations, was contrary to the purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
  2. Whether a statutory power conferred with discretionary elements allows the authority to act for reasons outside the statutory purpose.
  3. Whether courts can review and set aside decisions made for improper purposes, even where wide discretion exists.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the Minister’s refusal was unlawful.
  • It was determined that the Minister, although granted discretion, was required to exercise it in line with the statutory objectives.
  • Rejection of the request on political grounds amounted to an improper purpose, frustrating the intent of the Act.
  • Parliamentary intent was found to limit the exercise of discretion to furthering the Act’s aims.

Legal Principles

  • A statutory power, even with discretionary elements, must be exercised to achieve the purpose for which it was conferred.
  • Decisions made for reasons extraneous to the legislation’s objectives constitute improper (bad) use and are subject to judicial review.
  • Courts analyze the language, structure, and objective of the statute to determine the proper use of power.
  • There is a distinction between 'bad use' (improper purpose) and the consideration of irrelevant or relevant factors; a decision can be legally flawed due to improper motivation, even if proper factors were considered.
  • Later authority clarified the requirement to determine the primary purpose of the impugned decision.

Conclusion

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 remains a leading authority in administrative law, confirming that discretionary powers must be exercised consistently with statutory objectives and that courts can intervene where power is used for an improper purpose, thus reinforcing the accountability of public decision-makers.

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