## Introduction

Proportionality asks whether a measure that affects rights or interests goes further than is needed to achieve a proper aim. In UK law it appears most clearly in human rights and administrative law, and there are related ideas in contract law. The approach is structured and evidence-led, which helps both courts and decision-makers test whether a measure is justified.

The standard four-part analysis looks at: a legitimate aim; a rational connection between the measure and that aim; whether a less restrictive option could achieve the aim; and whether, overall, the benefits justify the costs to the individual or group affected. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and EU law have shaped the modern approach, but courts also use proportionality-style reasoning in common law contexts.

## What You’ll Learn

- How proportionality differs from the older Wednesbury “unreasonableness” test
- The four-stage test from Bank Mellat and the three-limb approach in Daly
- When UK courts apply proportionality: HRA 1998 claims, retained EU law, and common law rights
- How courts assess evidence, alternatives, and the “fair balance” stage
- Leading cases: Wednesbury, Daly, Bank Mellat, Denbigh, Quila, Pham, Lumsdon, Nordenfelt, and Cavendish
- Practical steps for building or defending a proportionality argument
- How to apply proportionality reasoning to restraint of trade and penalty clauses

## Core Concepts

### From Wednesbury to proportionality

- Wednesbury unreasonableness: In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, a decision could be quashed if so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made it. This is a high threshold and is not a structured inquiry into whether a measure is the least restrictive way to achieve an aim.

- EU and human rights influence: Proportionality arrived through EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), given effect in the UK by the HRA 1998. Courts moved beyond the “one big step” of irrationality to a step-by-step justification inquiry.

- Key milestones:
  - R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26: recognised a structured approach where common law rights are at stake, stronger than traditional Wednesbury.
  - Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39: set out a clear four-stage test in HRA cases.
  - Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 and Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69: discussed the role of proportionality at common law, without fully replacing Wednesbury in all settings.

- Practical difference:
  - Wednesbury: broadly deferential, limited to extreme unreasonableness.
  - Proportionality: structured, asks about alternatives, and requires a final weighing of impacts.

### The four-stage proportionality test

Courts often adopt the Bank Mellat framework:

1. Legitimate aim: Is the objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a right or interest?
2. Rational connection: Is the measure logically connected to achieving that aim?
3. Necessity: Could less restrictive means achieve the same aim?
4. Fair balance: Do the benefits outweigh the harm to the person(s) affected?

Related approaches:

- Daly framing: A three-limb test (objective importance; rational connection; necessity), with the balancing exercise often folded into or stated alongside the analysis.
- Evidence matters: Decision-makers should be ready to show data, consultation records, impact assessments, and reasons explaining why narrower options were discounted.
- Intensity varies: Courts tend to look more closely where fundamental rights are limited or a blanket measure is used, and may be more hands-off where choices involve complex social or economic policy.

### Where proportionality applies

- Human Rights Act 1998 claims: Many qualified rights (Articles 8–11 ECHR) require a “fair balance” between individual rights and community interests. Proportionality is the standard tool.
- Administrative law outside the HRA: Courts sometimes apply proportionality or similar reasoning to interferences with common law rights (for example, access to the courts and open justice), as seen in cases like Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20.
- EU and retained EU law: Proportionality remains relevant when statutes require EU-style analysis or retained EU law applies. See R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board [2015] UKSC 41 on proportionality for professional regulation under EU law.

### Contract law touchpoints

- Restraint of trade: Courts ask whether a contractual restriction is no wider than needed to protect a legitimate interest. Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535 remains the classic statement.
- Penalty clauses: In Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld clauses that protect a party’s legitimate interest, but a clause fails if the burden imposed is out of all proportion to that interest. While not labelled “proportionality”, the reasoning is similar.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  - A cinema licence condition was challenged. The court set the “so unreasonable” standard. This case frames the contrast with proportionality, which is more structured.

- R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
  - Prison policy required inmates to be absent during cell searches of legally privileged correspondence. The House of Lords held the policy went too far. Daly shows a rights-focused, structured analysis that is stricter than Wednesbury.

- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
  - A financial restrictions order singled out an Iranian bank. Applying the four-stage test, the Supreme Court quashed the order as disproportionate. The judgment is the leading statement of the UK proportionality framework under the HRA.

- R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15
  - A school uniform policy was upheld. The House of Lords accepted the school’s justification and the measures taken to accommodate religious dress, illustrating that proportionality can support a policy where it is carefully reasoned and suitably flexible.

- R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45
  - A blanket increase in the minimum age for marriage visas to address forced marriage was struck down as disproportionate. The measure caught many genuine couples and lacked a tight fit to the aim.

- Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19
  - Deprivation of citizenship engaged both EU law and common law concepts. Members of the Court discussed proportionality as the appropriate standard where fundamental interests are affected.

- R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board [2015] UKSC 41
  - A quality assurance scheme for advocates had to satisfy EU proportionality. The Court examined whether the measures were suitable and necessary, based on evidence.

- Contract examples
  - Nordenfelt [1894] AC 535: Restraint enforceable only if reasonable in scope and duration.
  - Cavendish [2015] UKSC 67: A clause is valid if it protects a legitimate interest and is not out of all proportion to that interest.

## Practical Applications

- Build a clear proportionality case
  - Identify the measure and the specific right or interest affected.
  - Pin down the legitimate aim: define it precisely and avoid vague statements.
  - Rational connection: explain how the measure helps achieve the aim; show any supporting data.
  - Necessity: list narrower options considered (targeted exceptions, shorter duration, lower penalty, fewer categories) and explain why they would not work.
  - Fair balance: set out the benefits and the harms, including real-world impact on the claimant or group, and why the outcome is justified (or not).

- Evidence to gather (both sides)
  - Impact assessments (including equality and human rights).
  - Consultation responses and the authority’s reasoning.
  - Comparative data, pilots, or trials showing effectiveness.
  - Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection.
  - Monitoring plans, review clauses, and time limits on measures.

- For public bodies and regulators
  - Build proportionality into policy design from the start.
  - Record reasons and evidence at each stage; avoid blanket rules unless you can justify them.
  - Consider exemptions, phased approaches, and reviews to reduce impact.

- For claimants and litigators
  - Challenge the aim if it is overbroad or not supported by the statutory framework.
  - Attack weak links: lack of evidence, poor fit to the aim, ignored alternatives, blanket approach.
  - Offer workable alternatives to help the court with the necessity stage.
  - Remedial strategy: quashing order, declaration of incompatibility (HRA), or reading down where possible.

- Exam and problem questions
  - Structure your answer by the four stages, signposting each one.
  - Use short, case-backed points: Daly (rights focus), Bank Mellat (four stages), Quila (blanket rule), Denbigh (justified school policy), Lumsdon (evidence under EU law).
  - Conclude with a clear view on fair balance, after addressing alternatives.

- Contract drafting and disputes
  - Restraints of trade: tailor scope, geography, and duration; tie the clause to a definite legitimate interest (e.g., confidential information, customer connections).
  - Penalty risk: ensure charges protect a legitimate interest and are not out of all proportion to that interest; explain the commercial justification in the contract.

Common mistakes to avoid

- Stating the aim in vague terms (“public interest”) without specifics
- Skipping the alternatives stage or failing to document rejected options
- Relying on assertions rather than evidence
- Treating Wednesbury and proportionality as interchangeable
- Ignoring the practical impact on the person affected

## Summary Checklist

- Know the difference: Wednesbury irrationality vs structured proportionality
- Apply the Bank Mellat four-stage test (aim, connection, necessity, fair balance)
- Use Daly for common law rights and to show stronger scrutiny than Wednesbury
- Identify when proportionality applies: HRA, retained EU law, and common law rights
- Gather and present evidence; do not rely on assumptions
- Consider and record less restrictive alternatives
- Watch for blanket measures and overbreadth
- Cite key authorities: Wednesbury, Daly, Bank Mellat, Denbigh, Quila, Pham, Lumsdon, Nordenfelt, Cavendish
- For contracts: narrow restraints; justify liquidated damages by a legitimate interest
- Conclude with a clear fair-balance analysis

## Quick Reference

| Concept/Test                    | Authority                                          | Key point                                                       |
| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Wednesbury unreasonableness     | [1948] 1 KB 223                                    | Very high threshold; not a structured proportionality test      |
| Common law rights (Daly)        | R (Daly) v SSHD [2001] UKHL 26                     | Three-limb approach; closer review than Wednesbury              |
| HRA proportionality (core test) | Bank Mellat (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39                  | Four stages: aim, connection, necessity, fair balance           |
| Blanket rule struck down        | R (Quila) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 45                    | Measure failed necessity/fair balance                           |
| EU/retained EU proportionality  | R (Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board [2015] UKSC 41  | Suitability, necessity, and evidence-driven justification       |
| Contract restraints/penalties   | Nordenfelt [1894] AC 535; Cavendish [2015] UKSC 67 | Clauses must be no wider than needed; not out of all proportion |

Proportionality in Common Law