- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) HL
This case confirms the dissenting judgment in Fewings regarding the weight given to relevant considerations in decision-making. Understanding this case hinges on grasping the distinction between relevance and weight.
I. Facts:
The core principle established is the separation of legal relevance from discretionary weighting. This means:
The case reinforces the principle, hinted at in the dissenting judgment of Fewings, that judicial review is not about substituting the court's judgment for the decision-maker's. Courts ensure the decision-making process is lawful (relevant factors considered), but not whether the decision is "right" in the decision-maker's subjective assessment of those factors.
V. Study Questions:
This case confirms the dissenting judgment in Fewings regarding the weight given to relevant considerations in decision-making. Understanding this case hinges on grasping the distinction between relevance and weight.
I. Facts:
- Tesco applied for planning permission for a superstore.
- Permission was refused.
- Tesco argued the Secretary of State wrongly ignored their offer to fund a local relief road – a relevant planning consideration.
- The House of Lords (HL) found the Secretary of State did consider the relief road offer. Therefore, the decision wasn't flawed procedurally.
- Crucially: The HL clarified that while the relevance of a consideration (like the relief road offer) is a matter of law (the court decides if it's legally relevant), the weight given to that consideration in the decision is a matter of the decision-maker's discretion. The court won't overturn a decision simply because it disagrees with the weight given to a relevant factor, unless the weight given is irrational or perverse.
The core principle established is the separation of legal relevance from discretionary weighting. This means:
- Legal Relevance: Courts determine if a factor is legally relevant to the decision. If a legally relevant factor is completely ignored, this is grounds for judicial review (illegality).
- Discretionary Weighting: The decision-maker (e.g., the Secretary of State) has the discretion to decide how much weight to give to each relevant factor. Judicial review won't interfere unless this weighting is irrational or perverse (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
The case reinforces the principle, hinted at in the dissenting judgment of Fewings, that judicial review is not about substituting the court's judgment for the decision-maker's. Courts ensure the decision-making process is lawful (relevant factors considered), but not whether the decision is "right" in the decision-maker's subjective assessment of those factors.
V. Study Questions:
- Define the difference between the legal relevance and the weight of a consideration in administrative decision-making.
- Explain why the Tesco decision wasn't overturned despite the argument about the relief road.
- How does this case relate to the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness? Under what circumstances would a court overturn a decision based on the weight given to a relevant factor?
- What would be the outcome if the Secretary of State had demonstrably ignored the relief road offer completely?
0 Comments