“Ministers cannot refuse to exercise statutory powers for improper purposes”
Milk producers complained about the Milk Marketing Board's pricing scheme and requested the Minister of Agriculture refer the matter to a committee of investigation under statutory powers. The Minister refused, citing concerns that an investigation might lead to demands for legislative changes that would conflict with government policy.
Whether a Minister can lawfully refuse to exercise a statutory discretionary power based on considerations of government policy rather than the factors contemplated by the relevant statute.
The Minister's refusal was unlawful. A discretionary power must be exercised according to the purposes for which it was granted, and cannot be frustrated by irrelevant policy considerations.
This case fundamentally shaped modern judicial review by establishing that seemingly absolute discretionary powers are subject to judicial oversight for improper purpose and irrelevant considerations. It marked a significant expansion of the courts' willingness to review executive decision-making.
You're reading the free summary of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.