Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - James Wilson Aberdeen verdict

Wednesbury unreasonableness is unreasonableness of an administrative decision that is so extreme that courts may intervene to correct it. The term derives from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, where the court stated that it would only intervene to correct a bad administrative decision on grounds of its unreasonableness if the decision was, as articulated in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." From wikipedia

so there is a chance that when you have obtained the full written verdict that the Lords have slated the council and maybe given them some extremely good advice, like issue a saloon plate to Mr Wilson, It could also be the reason why the council have to pay the costs???

Author:	skippy41 [ Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:	James Wilson Aberdeen verdict
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSIH08.html

Author:	JD [ Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: James Wilson Aberdeen verdict
skippy41 wrote: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSIH08.html It seems absurd that the court didn't even mention in any way shape or form the relevant sections mentioned in the Renfrewshire case. Admittedly those sections weren't argued in this case but this decision does nothing to alter that decision. Therefore it will be interesting to see what the court of appeal make of the Renfrewshire case. Regards JD

Author:	skippy41 [ Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Wednesbury unreasonableness is unreasonableness of an administrative decision that is so extreme that courts may intervene to correct it. The term derives from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, where the court stated that it would only intervene to correct a bad administrative decision on grounds of its unreasonableness if the decision was, as articulated in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." From wikipedia so there is a chance that when you have obtained the full written verdict that the Lords have slated the council and maybe given them some extremely good advice, like issue a saloon plate to Mr Wilson, It could also be the reason why the council have to pay the costs???

Author:	JD [ Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:20 am ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: Wednesbury unreasonableness is unreasonableness of an administrative decision that is so extreme that courts may intervene to correct it. The term derives from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, where the court stated that it would only intervene to correct a bad administrative decision on grounds of its unreasonableness if the decision was, as articulated in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." From wikipedia so there is a chance that when you have obtained the full written verdict that the Lords have slated the council and maybe given them some extremely good advice, like issue a saloon plate to Mr Wilson, It could also be the reason why the council have to pay the costs??? Unreasonableness Skippy is specific to each individual case. What should have been argued in the Wilson case is the legality of the council policy in consideration of those sections of the 1982 act that have already been highlighted as per the Renfrewshire case. What might be unreasonable in one scenario in consideration of a certain section of a particular act might be entirely reasonable in another similiar scenario under the same section of the same act? What cannot be disputed is the recognised illegality of a policy borne out of a "misconception" of a power that doesn't exist within an act. Finding the apex of the powers handed down to a subordinant body such as an administrative council is the ultimate aim of those wishing to right a perceived wrong. It is because of beligerent councillors, licensing officers and legal advisers that in most cases this can only be achieved through the courts. That is the ultimate legal test of the powers given to a council and one which as we now know was found to be the case in Renfrewshire. I think everyone is agreed that the only people who can clarify this situation is the Court of Appeal and hopefully that will be the case. Regards JD

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

James Wilson Aberdeen verdict http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7716	Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/