Scribd
Upload
150 views2 pages

Ashbridge Investments LTD V Minister of Housing and Local Government

The case of Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government established that a court can interfere with a decision maker's determination if they took into account immaterial considerations or failed to consider material ones. The court held that it could interfere if the Minister acted without evidence, came to an unreasonable conclusion given the evidence, applied the wrong legal interpretation, considered improper matters, or otherwise erred in law. While fresh evidence should generally not be admitted, evidence of what was before the Minister could be considered to determine if the proper process was followed. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases regarding judicial review of administrative decisions.

Uploaded by

David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views2 pages

Ashbridge Investments LTD V Minister of Housing and Local Government

The case of Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government established that a court can interfere with a decision maker's determination if they took into account immaterial considerations or failed to consider material ones. The court held that it could interfere if the Minister acted without evidence, came to an unreasonable conclusion given the evidence, applied the wrong legal interpretation, considered improper matters, or otherwise erred in law. While fresh evidence should generally not be admitted, evidence of what was before the Minister could be considered to determine if the proper process was followed. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases regarding judicial review of administrative decisions.

Uploaded by

David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of

Housing and Local Government: CA 1965


July 2, 2015 dls 0 Administrative, Planning,

References: [1965] 1 WLR 1320, [1965] 3 All ER 371


Coram: Lord Denning MR
Ratio The Minister had decided to confirm a CPO of premises which were now alleged not to be
a house as was required by the legislation under which the order was made.
Held: The court can interfere if the decision maker has taken into account a consideration which
is immaterial, or failed to take account of a consideration which is material.
The court considered how to look at further evidence in deciding whether the minister had acted
outside his powers. Lord Denning said: ‘The court can only interfere on the ground that the
Minister has gone outside the powers of the Act or that any requirement of the Act has not been
complied with. Under this section it seems to me that the court can interfere with the Minister’s
decision if he has acted on no evidence; or if he has come to a conclusion to which on the
evidence he could not reasonably come: or if he has given a wrong interpretation to the words of
the statute; or if he has taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into
account, or vice versa; or has otherwise gone wrong in law’ and
‘Fresh evidence should not be admitted save in exceptional circumstances. It is not correct for
the courts to approach the case absolutely de novo as though the court was sitting to decide the
matter in the first instance. The court can receive evidence to show what material was before the
Minister; but it cannot receive evidence of the kind which was indicated in the present case so as
to decide the whole matter afresh.’
This case is cited by:

 Cited – Moase and Lomas -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions and South West Water Limited CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 193)
Objection to compulsory purchase order. . .
 Cited – Persimmon Homes (North West) Ltd and others -v- The First Secretary of State
and Another Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2643 (Admin))
..
 Cited – De Bierre, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Communities
& Local Government Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 254 (Admin))
..
 Cited – Bridgewood Rochester Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 405 (Admin))
..
 Cited – Regina (Holding & Barnes plc) -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport
and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) -v- Same; Same -v-
Legal and General Assurance HL (Times 10-May-01, Gazette 14-Jun-01, Bailii, House of
Lords, [2001] 2 AC 295, [2001] 2 WLR 1389, [2001] 2 All ER 929, [2001] UKHL 23)
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and
certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a
judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
 Cited – Day and Another -v- Hosebay Ltd SC (SC, Bailii Summary, Bailii, [2012] UKSC
41, [2012] WLR (D) 271, UKSC 2010/0147, SC Summary)
The Court considered the provisions for leasehold enfranchisement now that the
residence requirement had been removed by the 2002 Act, and in particular the extent to
which, at all, it had allowed enfranchisement to be available to commercial . .
 Cited – Regina -v- The Secretary of State for the Environment, ex Parte Ostler CA
(Bailii, [1976] EWCA Civ 6, [1977] 1 QB 122)
The applicant had not taken objection to a proposed road scheme believing wrongly that
it would not afect his business. Other objectors had withdrawn because of secret re-
assurances given to them by the respondent.
Held: The court was asked, . .

You might also like