Taking into account that different authorities in the country may take different views (eithermainstream or campaigned about in local elections) = a margin of appreciation, this is only whichreasonable people can disagree and we are going to protect that.
If it was a test what courts consider as unreasonable, the courts will have different views with localauthorities = this is not right, intervening with parliaments intention and local authorities discretion must be WHOLLY unreasonable.
ivil Service Unions v. Minister for the
ivil Service  A
374 (Lord Diplock):
Essentially a restatement of what Lord Greene said By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "
unreasonableness" Itapplies to a decision, which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that nosensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether adecision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be wellequipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system.
ater expansion: the Wednesbury grid
Yet, in a development echoing that of procedural fairness (see lecture 7), we see
unreasonableness becoming (a) more expansively applied (fewer no-go areas) and (b) morevariable in terms of intensity of review.
the courts begin to say that what is Wednesbury unreasonable can itself vary from context to contextand there are some situations where we will look much more closely than others = there will be somecases where the test still remains as irrationality, or under that rubric of so unreasonable that no
can do it the courts are approaching that rather liberally and ever more likely to invoke it.
The rubric does not change, but the way it is applied has changed. DO NOT JUST GIVE THE ORIGIN
BOUT WEDNESBURY must show the developments (in the way it has been applied)
v Secretary of State for the Environment  A
Here, the L
was complaining about the way in which the central government was allocating money up anddown the country. The courts refused to question the governments decision. Here, the HL refers back to
as a doctrine of judicial restraint.The case refers to money andthe HL said this is a complicated financial allocation; the courts do not go to theseareas.
lso for statutory areas: as long as parliament approves of it, no reason for us to go into that.
. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Bugdaycay  A
The issue here is really whether courts can develop CL doctrines to better protect fundamental rights. Note thatthis is before the HR
really highlights the courts willingness to do just that, and this is atrend we see continuing up to today. This is a particularly important development:(1)
The CL may protect certain areas not covered by the HR
or provide a different remedy.(2)
lso, we cannot assume the continued existence of a HR
fter all, the conservatives went into the lastelection campaigning to abolish the HR
. If that were the case, clearly the CL protection would be vital.In this case: