Padfield
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Parties and outcome
- Claimant
- George Padfield, Geoffrey Loveys Brock and Henry Steven (appellants)
- Defendant
- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Milk Marketing Board (respondents)
- Outcome
- The milk producers won: their appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to the Divisional Court to require the Minister to consider their complaint according to law.
Citations in this work
Wednesbury
As the respondent states in his affirmation that he came to his decision for the reasons indicated in the two letters, it is primarily 12 [1948] 1 K.B. 223, 228; 63 T.L.R. 623; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680, C.A.
Wednesbury
Questions arising at a 14 [1948] 1 K.B. 223, 229.
Cited by
- Coughlan
Lord Templeman, at pp 864-866, reviewed the law in extenso, including the classic decisions in Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643 ; Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 ; Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629 and HTV Ltd v Price Commission [1976] ICR 170 *246 ("It is a commonplace of modern law that such bodies must act fairly... and that the courts have power to redress unfairness": Scarman LJ at p 189.) He reached this conclusion, at pp 866-867: "In principle I see no reason why the [taxpayer] should not be entitled to judicial review of a decision taken by the commissioners if that decision is unfair to the [taxpayer] because the conduct of the commissioners is equivalent to a breach of contract or a breach of representation.
- Porter v Magill
Support for this principle may be found in R v Board of Education [1910] 2 KB 165 at 181 where Farwell LJ said: “If this means that the Board were hampered by political considerations, I can only say that such considerations are pre-eminently extraneous, and that no political consequence can justify the Board in allowing their judgment and discretion to be influenced thereby.” This passage was accepted by Lord Upjohn in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 at 1058 , 1061.
- Bradley
Although both the judgment below and the arguments before us focused principally upon the scheme of the legislation and whether the highway authority's approach to its s.278 discretion thwarted the policy and objects of the two Acts here in question - see, for example, Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 - I for my part prefer the broader Wednesbury analysis of the case.
- Kirkham (2017)