Preston v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1985] 2 All ER 327

Facts

  • Mr. Preston, a taxpayer, requested a concession regarding tax payments from the Inland Revenue.
  • The Inland Revenue, possessing statutory authority to grant concessions, refused Mr. Preston's request.
  • Mr. Preston sought judicial review, claiming the refusal was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
  • The central issue was the extent to which courts could scrutinize decisions by public bodies exercising discretionary powers.

Issues

  1. Whether the Inland Revenue’s refusal to grant a tax concession to Mr. Preston was amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether courts could review discretionary decisions by public bodies for unreasonableness or procedural unfairness.
  3. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied to Mr. Preston’s circumstances.

Decision

  • The House of Lords dismissed Mr. Preston's appeal.
  • The court affirmed the Inland Revenue’s authority to grant concessions was subject to judicial review but not to the extent of substituting judicial discretion for that of the Revenue.
  • Judicial intervention was confined to ensuring the Revenue acted within statutory authority, considered relevant factors, and disregarded irrelevant ones.
  • The court recognized that if a legitimate expectation arose from consistent past practice, deviation would require justification, though this was not determinative in Mr. Preston's case.

Legal Principles

  • Discretionary powers of public bodies, including tax authorities, are subject to judicial review for illegality, unreasonableness, or procedural impropriety.
  • Courts should not supplant the judgment of public bodies acting within their lawful discretion.
  • The principle of legitimate expectation may apply where a public authority departs from established practice, requiring it to provide reasons for its decision.
  • The Wednesbury unreasonableness standard informs judicial restraint when reviewing discretionary administrative decisions.

Conclusion

Preston v Inland Revenue Commissioners confirmed that discretionary decisions of public authorities are reviewable by courts only for illegality, unreasonableness, or procedural unfairness. The case reinforced the boundaries of judicial oversight without displacing the authority's discretion and contributed to the development of legitimate expectation in public law.

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