"…I think that the day will come when it will be more widely recognised that …Wednesbury …was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, in so far as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. The depth of judicial review and the deference due to administrative discretion vary with the subject matter. It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd."

Which case is this taken from?

Question

"…I think that the day will come when it will be more widely recognised that …Wednesbury …was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, in so far as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. The depth of judicial review and the deference due to administrative discretion vary with the subject matter. It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd."

Which case is this taken from?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The excerpt presents a quotation about the evolution of judicial review in English administrative law, particularly the idea that there may be varying degrees of unreasonableness and that courts may tolerate some deference to administrative discretion depending on the context. This is tied to a famous line of authority from a landmark case that criticized the old notion of a single rigid standard.
Option A: 'Pham v Home Secretary (2015)' is a more recent UK Supreme Court case dealing with human rights and immigration/refugee matters, but it is not the case associated with the quotation on Wednesbury unreasonableness and its limits. The surrounding discussion on degrees of unreasonableness and deference does not align with the core issue in Pham, which centers on proportionality and ECHR rights rather than the classic Wednesbury framework.
Option B: 'Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2016)' concerns asylum or immigration decisions and again engages with modern judicial review principles, yet it does not anchor the quotation to the Wednesbury lineage or its critique in the way the provided passage does. The wording here does not reflect the Wednesbury critique that the quote expresses.
Option C: 'R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532' is the case most closely associated with discussions of Wednesbury unreasonableness, the depth of judicial review, and the idea that courts may require more than mere non-capricious or non-absurd decisions in certain contexts. This is the classic authority often cited when arguing that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that different subject matters affect the appropriate standard of review.
Option D: 'R (Association of British Civilian Internees (Far East Region)) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2003] QB 1397' involves a different line of administrative-law questions and does not carry the same weight as Daly with respect to the structure and limits of Wednesbury review and the variability of judicial deference across subject matter. While it engages in public-law reasoning, it does not serve as the primary anchor for the Wednesbury critique invoked in the quotation.
In summary, the passage foregrounds a discussion about the degree and nature of judicial review in English administrative law, which is most characteristically tied to the Daly case and its treatment of Wednesbury principles, rather than the other listed cases. The other options either address different doctrinal strands or apply to distinct factual contexts, making them less likely to be the source of this quotation.

LAW1240 (24/25) QUIZ: Check your knowledge on irrationality

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The main duty of the Supreme Court is judicial

Question at position 8 What is the chief responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court? Acts as the ultimate authority in interpreting the U.S. ConstitutionEnsures legislation passed by Congress is adoptedResponsible for collecting federal taxesSelects federal judges

Which body has the power to interpret laws?

The main duty of the Supreme Court is judicial

Question at position 8 What is the chief responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court? Acts as the ultimate authority in interpreting the U.S. ConstitutionEnsures legislation passed by Congress is adoptedResponsible for collecting federal taxesSelects federal judges

Which body has the power to interpret laws?

Why was Marbury v. Madison an important U.S. Supreme Court case?

Is the Wednesbury test a subjective or objective test?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler