Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Roberts v Hopwood (1925) a metropolitan boro g! co ncil !a" "eci"e" to pa# it$ %or&er$ '( a %ee&) %!et!er t!e# %ere men or %omen* T!e Ho $e of +or"$ approve" t!e "i$trict a "itor,$ cancellation pa#ment for being overl# grat ito $) given %or&ing cla$$ con"ition$* +or" -t&in$on $ai" t!e co ncil !a") .allo%e" t!em$elve$ to be g i"e" in preference b# $ome eccentric principle$ of $ociali$tic p!ilant!rop#) or b# a femini$t ambition to $ec re t!e e/ alit# of t!e $e0e$ in t!e matter of %age$ in t!e %orl" of labo r*.
I123O2E3 DE+E4-TION OF -5THO3IT6 In Ellis v Dubowski [1921] 3 KB 621 it %a$ !el" t!at a Co nt# Co ncil co l" not "elegate it$ po%er to "eci"e %!et!er a film co l" be $!o%n b# "eclaring t!at an# film approve" b# t!e 7riti$! 7oar" of Film Cen$or$) a private bo"#) co l" be $!o%n* - complaint %a$ ma"e t!at t!e local a t!orit# !a" a""e" an nla%f l con"ition to a licence it !a" grante"* The illegal element which the authority had imported into the conditions imposed consisted of a delegation of their powers to the police. t was not that the delegation was a thing which no reasona!le person could ha"e thought was a sensi!le thing to do. t was outside their powers altogether
to pass on this discretion which the legislature had confided to them to some outside !ody*
T!e total "elegation of a po%er i$ le$$ li&el# to be permitte" t!an it$ partial "elegation*1 In t!i$ regar" t!e level of control maintaine" b# t!e original f nctionar# over t!e "elegate" po%er i$ ver# important 8 t!e greater t!e control) t!e le$$er t!e e0tent of t!e "elegation* -ccor"ing to 9a"e an" For$#t! :;t<!e vital / e$tion in mo$t ca$e$ i$ %!et!er t!e $tat tor# "i$cretion remain$ in t!e !an"$ of t!e proper a t!orit#) or %!et!er $ome ot!er per$on p rport$ to e0erci$e it*= In Allingham and Another v Minister of Agriculture and FisherieS [19#$] 1 %ll &' ($) for e0ample) a committee !a" t!e %artime po%er to or"er farmer$ to gro% certain crop$ on $pecific fiel"$* 9it! re$pect to one farmer t!e# left t!e "eci$ion of %!ic! fiel" $!o l" be $e" to t!eir e0ec tive officer* T!e e0erci$e of po%er %a$ !el" to be invali") b t t!e Co rt note" t!at t!ere %o l" !ave been no problem if t!e committee !a" acte" it$elf on t!e recommen"ation of t!e officer* 2
a) i)
British *+ygen ,o -td .". /inistry of Technology ; 19>?< @ -++ E3 1A50 British *+ygen ,o -td .". Board of Trade ;19>1< -C A1?B
It %a$ rea$onable an" rig!t for a p blic a t!orit# to ma&e &no%n to t!o$e intere$te" t!e polic# it %a$ going to follo%C ,;b<# "oing $o fr itle$$ application$ involving e0pen$e an" e0pen"it re of time mig!t be avoi"e",* If a polic# i$ not to be applie" in accor"ance %it! it$ meaning) a$ %o l" !ave been t!e ca$e on t!e original %or"ing of $ection A*1 of t!e licen$ing polic#) t!ere can be no $ c! g i"ance*. an" .Dince t!ere i$ a r le t!at a p blic a t!orit# i$ not entitle" to fetter it$ "i$cretion) it i$ oblige" to &eep open t!e po$$ibilit# of not appl#ing t!at polic# in an# partic lar ca$e if t!e $pecific circ m$tance$ of t!at ca$e %arrant t!e "i$application of t!e polic# in relation to it*.
1 2
ii)