Congreve v Home Office
Following an announcement that the price of a TV licence was to be raised, people bought licences at the old price to beat the increase. The Home Secretary purported to exercise his powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to cancel any licence TV licences bought. Held: The Home Secretary had acted for an improper purpose, and that his decision was consequently ultra vires and unlawful.

In Roberts v Hopwood (1925) a metropolitan boro g! co ncil !a" "eci"e" to pa# it$ %or&er$ '( a %ee&) %!et!er t!e# %ere men or %omen* T!e Ho $e of +or"$ approve" t!e "i$trict a "itor,$ cancellation pa#ment for being overl# grat ito $) given %or&ing cla$$ con"ition$* +or" -t&in$on $ai" t!e co ncil !a") .allo%e" t!em$elve$ to be g i"e" in preference b# $ome eccentric principle$ of $ociali$tic p!ilant!rop#) or b# a femini$t ambition to $ec re t!e e/ alit# of t!e $e0e$ in t!e matter of %age$ in t!e %orl" of labo r*.

I123O2E3 DE+E4-TION OF -5THO3IT6 In Ellis v Dubowski [1921] 3 KB 621 it %a$ !el" t!at a Co nt# Co ncil co l" not "elegate it$ po%er to "eci"e %!et!er a film co l" be $!o%n b# "eclaring t!at an# film approve" b# t!e 7riti$! 7oar" of Film Cen$or$) a private bo"#) co l" be $!o%n* - complaint %a$ ma"e t!at t!e local a t!orit# !a" a""e" an nla%f l con"ition to a licence it !a" grante"* The illegal element which the authority had imported into the conditions imposed consisted of a delegation of their powers to the police. t was not that the delegation was a thing which no reasona!le person could ha"e thought was a sensi!le thing to do. t was outside their powers altogether

* If a polic# i$ not to be applie" in accor"ance %it! it$ meaning) a$ %o l" !ave been t!e ca$e on t!e original %or"ing of $ection A*1 of t!e licen$ing polic#) t!ere can be no $ c! g i"ance*. /inistry of Technology . 19>?< @ -++ E3 1A50 British *+ygen .o -td . 1 2 .b<# "oing $o fr itle$$ application$ involving e0pen$e an" e0pen"it re of time mig!t be avoi"e".". Board of Trade .o -td .".to pass on this discretion which the legislature had confided to them to some outside !ody* T!e total "elegation of a po%er i$ le$$ li&el# to be permitte" t!an it$ partial "elegation*1 In t!i$ regar" t!e level of control maintaine" b# t!e original f nctionar# over t!e "elegate" po%er i$ ver# important 8 t!e greater t!e control) t!e le$$er t!e e0tent of t!e "elegation* -ccor"ing to 9a"e an" For$#t! :.19>1< -C A1?B It %a$ rea$onable an" rig!t for a p blic a t!orit# to ma&e &no%n to t!o$e intere$te" t!e polic# it %a$ going to follo%C ..t<!e vital / e$tion in mo$t ca$e$ i$ %!et!er t!e $tat tor# "i$cretion remain$ in t!e !an"$ of t!e proper a t!orit#) or %!et!er $ome ot!er per$on p rport$ to e0erci$e it*= In Allingham and Another v Minister of Agriculture and FisherieS [19#$] 1 %ll &' ($) for e0ample) a committee !a" t!e %artime po%er to or"er farmer$ to gro% certain crop$ on $pecific fiel"$* 9it! re$pect to one farmer t!e# left t!e "eci$ion of %!ic! fiel" $!o l" be $e" to t!eir e0ec tive officer* T!e e0erci$e of po%er %a$ !el" to be invali") b t t!e Co rt note" t!at t!ere %o l" !ave been no problem if t!e committee !a" acte" it$elf on t!e recommen"ation of t!e officer* 2 a) i) Fettering of Di$cretion Over a"!erence to 2olic# British *+ygen . an" .Dince t!ere i$ a r le t!at a p blic a t!orit# i$ not entitle" to fetter it$ "i$cretion) it i$ oblige" to &eep open t!e po$$ibilit# of not appl#ing t!at polic# in an# partic lar ca$e if t!e $pecific circ m$tance$ of t!at ca$e %arrant t!e "i$application of t!e polic# in relation to it*.

ii) -greement or ot!er n"erta&ing .