Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1986] AC 240

House of Lords

Facts: The case revolved around the Secretary of State's issuance of guidance on local authority spending, which Nottinghamshire and Bradford, among others, challenged as discriminatory. The guidance categorized councils into high-spending and low-spending, with the high-spending councils facing tighter restrictions. The respondent authorities argued that this was unfair and disproportionately disadvantageous to them.

Issue : The main legal issue was whether the courts had the authority to review decisions of the Secretary of State concerning the allocation of public funds to local authorities.

Held : The House of Lords ruled that the guidance was lawful, as it was based on consistent principles applicable to all local authorities, even though those principles allowed for differentiation between high- and low-spending councils. The court emphasized that the Secretary of State’s actions were within his statutory powers and that judicial intervention would only be warranted in cases of bad faith or gross unreasonableness (Wednesbury unreasonableness).

Judicial Remarks (Lord Scarman): Lord Scarman expressed reluctance for the courts to interfere in matters of political judgment, particularly where Parliament had already approved the Secretary of State's actions. He remarked that unless there was evidence of bad faith, improper motive, or absurdity in the consequences of the guidance, the court should refrain from intervention.

💡Leveluplaw : This case illustrates the judiciary's deference to parliamentary decisions and political discretion, underscoring the limits of judicial review in the context of decisions approved by the House of Commons.