Introduction
Administrative law principles direct how public bodies use their authority. A main rule is that legal powers must be applied fairly and without rigid policies that remove needed adaptability. This rule, called the principle against inflexible application, demands that every case be judged on its own details, with room for exceptions. Ignoring this rule may render a decision invalid. The case of R v Port of London Authority, Ex parte Kynoch Ltd. demonstrates this principle.
The Facts of R v Port of London Authority
Kynoch Ltd., a manufacturer of explosives, sought permission to construct a wharf on the Thames. The Port of London Authority (PLA), which controlled port activities, refused the request based on a practice favoring development by the PLA over private projects. Though not an outright ban, this practice resulted in most private applications being rejected. Kynoch claimed the refusal improperly restricted the PLA’s responsibility to consider each application separately.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Kynoch. The court accepted that the PLA could develop policies to manage the port. However, it emphasized that policies must not turn into rigid standards that override the need for case-by-case evaluation. The PLA’s practice, despite neutral wording, led to rejections without proper review of each application’s specific circumstances.
Implications for Administrative Law
R v Port of London Authority reinforced the rule against inflexible policy application. The judgment confirmed that while public bodies may use policies to guide decisions, these cannot replace the legal duty to judge each case independently. Authorities must remain open to adjusting policies when justified. This ensures fairness and adaptability in official actions.
Separating Lawful Policy Use from Unlawful Rigidity
Later rulings have defined the line between acceptable policy guidance and unlawful rigidity. For example, British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 established that a policy is lawful if exceptions are allowed and seriously considered in individual cases. The critical factor is whether the body maintains actual freedom to deviate from the policy when required.
Guidance for Public Bodies
R v Port of London Authority provides practical advice for public bodies. Policies must not prevent individual evaluation. Decision-makers must carefully consider exceptions and justify their conclusions, including when a policy is applied or adjusted. This supports compliance with the rule against inflexibility and maintains fairness. Public bodies must also ensure their policies are reasonable and aligned with legal purposes. Regular reviews of policies help avoid unintended rigidity.
Examples of Inflexible Application
To illustrate the principle, suppose a planning authority has a policy against home extensions in a conservation area. This policy, aimed at preserving local character, must not be used automatically. Factors like design, effect on nearby properties, and potential benefits must be examined. Rejecting a proposal solely due to the policy would be unlawful.
Another example involves a funding body favoring projects in disadvantaged regions. It must still evaluate each application individually. A proposal in a wealthier area might offer unique benefits warranting approval. Disregarding such cases would unlawfully impose rigidity.
Conclusion
R v Port of London Authority, Ex parte Kynoch Ltd. set out an important rule in administrative law, distinguishing lawful policy use from unlawful rigidity. Public bodies must apply their powers with flexibility, judging each case on its own terms and allowing exceptions. The ruling emphasizes that authorities must keep genuine adaptability to ensure fair and lawful outcomes. Cases like British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology further demonstrate how exceptions must be considered and decisions justified. By following these rules, public bodies can act lawfully and maintain fairness in administrative actions.
