Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury (1948): The Rationality Standard in Administrative Law

“How far should courts defer to administrative decisions?” The Wednesbury case is the landmark that points to an answer.

Hello! Today I’m discussing the English administrative law classic, Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury (1948). When I first met this case in class, it felt oddly specific—why were Sunday cinema restrictions such a big deal? It turns out the case draws the line around administrative discretion. That “oh, this is the balance between law and common sense” moment has stuck with me ever since.

Contents

Case Background Key Legal Issues The Court’s Decision The Wednesbury Principle Impact and Significance Contemporary Meaning

Case Background

In 1940s England, the cinema chain Associated Provincial Picture Houses wanted to screen films on Sundays. The Wednesbury local authority allowed Sunday screenings on the condition that children under 15 were not admitted. The cinema challenged the condition as unreasonable and an abuse of power. The core issue was how far courts may review discretionary decisions of administrative bodies.

Key Legal Issues

The case sits at the boundary between administrative discretion and judicial review. The court examined the following issues:

Issue	Explanation
Scope of Discretion	Did the local authority have statutory power to impose conditions on Sunday screenings?
Limits of Judicial Review	To what extent may a court intervene in the merits of a discretionary decision?
Rationality Standard	Was the decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it?

The Court’s Decision

The court dismissed the cinema’s claim. Lord Greene MR held that administrative discretion must be respected, and judicial intervention is strictly limited. Key points:

• Courts will not interfere so long as the decision lies within a range of reasonable responses.
• Judicial review checks legality and limits—not a merits appeal to reweigh the decision.
• Intervention requires unreasonableness of an “absurd” or “outrageous” kind.

The Wednesbury Principle

The decision crystallized what later became known as “Wednesbury unreasonableness.” A court may quash an administrative decision only if it falls outside the bounds of reasonableness. Classic indicators include:

• Taking into account irrelevant considerations;
• Ignoring relevant considerations that must be taken into account;
• A conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have reached it.

Impact and Significance

Wednesbury set the benchmark for rationality review and shaped the development of UK public law. For decades it was the central framework for “reasonableness” scrutiny across the common law world.

Impact	Examples
Respect for Administrative Discretion	Warned courts against substituting their own view for that of decision-makers.
Rationality Test Entrenched	Introduced the “outrageous unreasonableness” threshold for quashing decisions.
Evolution toward Modern Review	Later complemented by proportionality, especially in rights cases.

Contemporary Meaning

The Wednesbury test remains a touchstone, though often criticized as too deferential. Proportionality now supplements it—particularly in human rights litigation. Today the case stands for:

• A model for balancing deference to discretion with the rule of law.
• The starting point for reasonableness review.
• A framework often complemented by proportionality analysis.

FAQ

Q What is the Wednesbury case about?

A 1948 challenge to conditions on Sunday cinema screenings that defined the standard for reviewing administrative discretion.

Q Why is it important?

It respects administrative autonomy while setting a minimum threshold for court intervention.

Q What is “Wednesbury unreasonableness”?

Intervention is justified only if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.

Q Is the case still applied today?

Yes—though proportionality is often applied alongside it in rights-sensitive contexts.

Q What are its limits?

It is criticized for being too strict, making review difficult unless the decision is extreme.

Q How does it differ from proportionality?

Proportionality weighs means against ends; Wednesbury asks only whether the decision is outrageously unreasonable.

Conclusion

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury (1948) breathed legal meaning into the everyday word “reasonableness.” Studying it helped me see why courts sometimes hesitate to intervene—discretion deserves respect, but citizens also need decisions they can accept. Do you think the “plainly unreasonable” threshold still makes sense today, or do we need a more nuanced test like proportionality? I’d love to hear your thoughts.