Administrative law and the growth of the regulatory state
Administrative Law and the Growth of the Regulatory State
1. Introduction
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It ensures that these bodies act lawfully, fairly, and rationally while carrying out their functions.
Over the 20th century, there has been a significant growth of the regulatory state — governments increasingly delegate powers to regulatory agencies to manage complex social, economic, and environmental issues.
2. What is the Regulatory State?
The regulatory state consists of various public agencies with authority to create and enforce rules in specific sectors such as health, environment, finance, and consumer protection.
These agencies often have quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and quasi-judicial powers.
They regulate through licensing, monitoring, enforcement, adjudication, and issuing guidelines.
3. Impact on Administrative Law
Expansion of delegated legislation and rule-making powers.
Increased use of discretionary powers.
Growing importance of judicial review to control abuses of power.
Emphasis on procedural fairness and accountability in administrative decision-making.
4. Key Case Laws Illustrating Administrative Law and Regulatory State Growth
Case 1: Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works (1943)
Facts: The Minister delegated powers to officials in the department.
Issue: Whether administrative decisions made by officials rather than the Minister were valid.
Judgment: The court held that powers vested in ministers can be exercised by responsible officials within the department (the "Carltona doctrine").
Significance: Recognized practical realities of the regulatory state, allowing delegation within government departments.
Case 2: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: Local authority imposed conditions on cinema operation hours.
Issue: Whether the authority’s decision was unreasonable or illegal.
Judgment: The court introduced the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard — a decision is unlawful if it is so unreasonable no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance: Provided a key test for reviewing administrative discretion, crucial in regulatory decision-making.
Case 3: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts: The Home Secretary promised compensation to victims of criminal injuries but then decided not to implement it.
Issue: Whether the Secretary’s refusal was lawful.
Judgment: The court held the decision was unlawful, emphasizing that promises and policies must be respected unless properly changed.
Significance: Reinforced the rule of law and legitimate expectations doctrine in administrative regulation.
Case 4: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — the GCHQ Case
Facts: The government banned trade union membership at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) citing national security.
Issue: Whether the decision was subject to judicial review despite national security claims.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that all administrative decisions are reviewable in principle, but some grounds like national security might limit remedies.
Significance: Marked a turning point by confirming judicial review extends to high-level government decisions, even in the regulatory context.
Case 5: Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts: The Commission made an error of law in refusing compensation.
Issue: Whether a statutory ouster clause prevented judicial review.
Judgment: The court ruled that errors of law render decisions invalid despite ouster clauses.
Significance: Greatly expanded the scope of judicial review over regulatory bodies, limiting attempts to exclude courts from review.
Case 6: R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts: The government sought to trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s consent.
Issue: Whether executive powers included the right to start withdrawal from the EU without legislation.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that major constitutional changes require parliamentary approval.
Significance: Demonstrated limits of executive regulatory powers and emphasized parliamentary sovereignty in administrative governance.
5. Summary
The growth of the regulatory state has expanded the role and powers of administrative bodies. Administrative law has adapted to ensure that this increased discretion is exercised within legal bounds, emphasizing legality, rationality, procedural fairness, and accountability. The landmark cases above illustrate key principles governing delegation, discretion, legitimate expectation, and judicial review in the regulatory context.
RELATED Blog
0 comments