Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] EWCA Civ 1

A cinema company challenged a local authority's condition prohibiting children under 15 from Sunday performances. The Court of Appeal held courts can only interfere with executive discretion if the authority acted unreasonably in the legal sense – taking irrelevant matters into account, ignoring relevant ones, or reaching a decision no reasonable authority could reach. This established the foundational principles of judicial review.

Facts

The plaintiffs, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd, were proprietors of a cinema theatre in Wednesbury. The defendant corporation, acting as the licensing authority under the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932, granted a licence for Sunday performances but imposed a condition that no children under fifteen years of age could be admitted to any entertainment, whether accompanied by an adult or not. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that this condition was ultra vires.

Issues

The central issue was whether the court could interfere with the local authority’s exercise of discretion in imposing the condition, and specifically whether the condition was unreasonable and therefore ultra vires.

Judgment

Lord Greene M.R.

Lord Greene MR delivered the leading judgment, dismissing the appeal and establishing principles that became foundational to English administrative law. He emphasised the limited grounds upon which courts may interfere with executive discretion:

The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account.

He clarified the meaning of unreasonableness in this context:

It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere. That, I think, is quite right; but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming.

Lord Greene illustrated the concept with reference to Warrington LJ’s example:

Warrington L.J. in Short v. Poole Corporation gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters.

He emphasised that the court’s role is not to substitute its own view:

The effect of the legislation is not to set up the court as an arbiter of the correctness of one view over another. It is the local authority that are set in that position and, provided they act, as they have acted, within the four corners of their jurisdiction, this court, in my opinion, cannot interfere.

Somervell LJ and Singleton J

Both concurred with Lord Greene MR without adding further observations.

Legal Principles

The judgment established what became known as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ – courts may only interfere with executive discretion where:

• The authority has taken into account matters it ought not to consider
• The authority has refused or neglected to take into account matters it ought to consider
• The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it

Implications

This case became the cornerstone of judicial review in English administrative law. The ‘Wednesbury principles’ established a high threshold for judicial intervention in executive decisions, balancing the need for legal oversight against respect for democratic decision-making by elected bodies. The case remains authoritative despite subsequent developments in proportionality review, particularly in human rights contexts.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The condition imposed by the local authority was held to be within their powers and not unreasonable in the legal sense.

Source: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] EWCA Civ 1