Facts
- Kynoch Ltd, a manufacturer of explosives, sought permission to construct a wharf on the Thames.
- The Port of London Authority (PLA), responsible for port activities, denied the application.
- The PLA’s refusal was based on a consistent practice favoring its own developments over private projects.
- Although the practice did not impose an outright ban, most private applications were refused as a result.
- Kynoch Ltd argued this amounted to an improper restriction of the PLA’s duty to consider each application on its merits.
Issues
- Whether a public authority may develop policies guiding its discretionary power without unlawfully fettering its discretion.
- Whether the PLA’s practice constituted rigid policy application that prevented proper consideration of individual circumstances.
- Whether public bodies are obliged to consider exceptions to general policies in all relevant cases.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal found in favor of Kynoch Ltd.
- The court accepted that the PLA could create policies for managing the port but emphasized these must not be applied so rigidly as to eliminate the need for genuine evaluation of each case.
- It was held that the PLA’s practice resulted in improper refusals, as private applications were rejected without adequate consideration of their particular merits.
- The court distinguished lawful policy use from unlawful inflexibility, confirming that each application must be considered individually, and exceptions must be permitted if justified.
Legal Principles
- Public bodies may adopt policies to guide their exercise of discretionary powers, but may not apply them so rigidly as to preclude consideration of individual circumstances.
- Authorities have a legal duty to remain open to making exceptions and must not allow policies to override actual case-by-case assessment.
- Decisions must be justified in each case, with consideration for whether policy application or deviation is appropriate.
- The distinction between lawful policy and unlawful rigidity is whether the authority maintains genuine discretion and demonstrates willingness to adjust when justified.
Conclusion
The case established that administrative bodies may use policies for guidance but must retain real flexibility to assess each situation individually and allow justified exceptions; rigid or blanket application of policy without proper consideration of the facts is unlawful.
