ABSTRACT
Early expression was given to the concept in two cases, Rooke’s Case (1598) and Keighley’s Case (1609). In Rooke’s Case, Coke LJ proclaimed:
The classic case of more recent times is that of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). The local authority had the power to grant licences for the opening of cinemas subject to such conditions as the authority ‘thought fit’ to impose. The authority, when granting a Sunday licence, imposed a condition that no children under the age of 15 years should be admitted. The applicants argued that the imposition of the condition was unreasonable and ultra vires the corporation’s powers. The authority argued that there were no limits on the conditions which could be imposed in the statute. Lord Greene MR alluded to the many grounds of attack which could be made against a decision, citing unreasonableness, bad faith, dishonesty, paying attention to irrelevant circumstances, disregard of the proper decision making procedure and held that each of these could be encompassed within the umbrella term ‘unreasonableness’. The test propounded in that case was whether an authority had acted, or reached a decision, in a manner ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it’:
‘Unreasonableness’ was employed to challenge a byelaw which prohibited singing ‘in any public place or highway within fifty yards of any dwelling house’ although, on the merits of the case, the challenge failed.43 In Roberts v Hopwood (1925), the council, in adopting a policy of paying higher wages than the national average for its workers, was unreasonable, for the discretion of the council was limited by law – it was not free to pursue a socialist policy at the expense of its rate payers. The House of Lords ruled that, irrespective of the wording of the statute, the council had a duty to act ‘reasonably’; its discretion was limited by law.44
