Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]

Padfield v Minister of
UKHL 1 (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1968/1.html) is a
United Kingdom administrative law case, concerning judicial Agriculture, Fisheries and
review. Food

Contents
Facts
Judgment Court House of Lords
Court of Appeal
Full case R (on the application
House of Lords
name of Padfield and others)
See also v Minister of
Notes Agriculture, Fisheries
External links and Food and others
Decided 1968
Citation(s) [1968] UKHL 1 (http://
Facts www.bailii.org/uk/case
s/UKHL/1968/1.html),
Padfield and other milk producers in the South East Region argued [1968] AC 997
they should get more milk subsidies to reflect growing transport
costs, and applied to court to compel the minister to appoint an Case opinions
investigation. A minister's discretion to refuse an
investigation was subject to judicial
The Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 section 19 said a committee
review where a refusal would
of the Milk Marketing Board can investigate "if the Minister so
frustrate the policy of an Act.
directs" after a complaint on a scheme's operation if it cannot be
considered by a consumers' committee (subsection 3(b)), and if it Court membership
reports a scheme is "contrary to the interests of consumers of the Judge(s) Lord Reid
regulated products" or "any persons affected by the scheme" and is sitting
"not in the public interest" the minister can amend the scheme, Lord Morris of Borth-y-
revoke it or direct the board to rectify it (subsection 6). Gest
Lord Hodson
There were eleven milk regions with different prices for milk,
Lord Pearce
fixed depending on costs of transporting milk from producers to
consumers. All milk producers had to sell their milk to the Milk Lord Upjohn
Marketing Board. Differentials had been fixed a few years earlier Keywords
and transport costs had changed.
Judicial review
The SE region argued the difference between it and the Far
Western Region should be altered: this would incidentally affect other regions. Board members were
elected by individual regions, so it was impossible for SE producers to get a majority for their proposals.
They asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Fred Peart) to appoint a committee of
investigation, but he refused. They requested mandamus (specifically, a court order requiring the Minister
to appoint the Committee).

Judgment

Court of Appeal

Diplock LJ and Russell LJ held the minister's discretion could not be challenged. Lord Denning MR
dissented.

House of Lords

The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an
investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order
should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.

Lord Reid said:

[The] policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and
construction is always a matter of law for the court. In a matter of this kind it is not possible to
draw a hard and fast line, but if the Minister, by reason of his having misconstrued the Act or
for any other reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy and objects
of the Act, then our law would be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to the
protection of the court.

Lord Upjohn said that if the minister

does not give any reason for his decision it may be ... that a court may be at liberty to come to
the conclusion that he had no good reason for reaching that conclusion and order a prerogative
writ to issue accordingly.[1]

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissented.

See also
UK constitutional law

Notes
1. [1968] AC 997, 1062

External links
 Brexit, Padfield, and the Benn Act (https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/brexit-padfield-and-t
he-benn-act/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padfield_v_Minister_of_Agriculture&oldid=1104712625"

This page was last edited on 16 August 2022, at 13:42 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.