Improper purpose as a ground of review
Overview: Improper Purpose as a Ground of Review
Improper purpose occurs when a public authority or administrative body exercises its power for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred.
It is a well-established ground for judicial review in administrative law.
Even if a decision-maker has the legal authority to take an action, if the decision was made primarily for an unauthorized or collateral reason, courts may quash the decision.
This principle ensures that administrative powers are not abused or exercised arbitrarily.
Improper purpose can be shown when:
The decision was motivated by bad faith, malice, or ulterior motives.
The decision was made to achieve an illegitimate goal.
The power was exercised for a collateral purpose unrelated to the statutory scheme.
Key Elements of Improper Purpose Review
Identification of the power: The court must identify the purpose for which the power was given by statute or regulation.
Examination of actual purpose: The court examines the decision-maker’s real reasons for exercising the power.
Determining improper purpose: If the purpose is other than that authorized, the exercise of power is invalid.
No need to show bad faith: Improper purpose does not require ill-will; it suffices that the decision was made for an unauthorized reason.
Important Cases on Improper Purpose as a Ground of Review
1. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] AC 997 (UK House of Lords)
Facts:
Minister refused to refer complaints about milk prices to a committee.
Complainants argued the refusal was for an improper purpose.
Issue:
Whether the Minister’s discretion was exercised for a purpose other than that intended by Parliament.
Holding:
The House of Lords held the Minister could not refuse a referral simply because it was politically inconvenient.
The discretion must be exercised to promote the statutory purpose, not to frustrate it.
Impact:
Landmark case establishing improper purpose as a ground of review.
Confirmed that powers must be exercised bona fide and in accordance with the purpose for which they were granted.
2. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson, [1998] AC 407 (UK House of Lords)
Facts:
The Home Secretary increased the minimum tariff for juvenile offenders after a public outcry.
Claimants argued the decision was made for an improper political purpose.
Issue:
Whether the Home Secretary exercised discretion with an improper purpose by yielding to political pressure.
Holding:
The House of Lords held the Secretary of State’s decision was unlawful as it was motivated by public or political pressure rather than individual justice considerations.
Impact:
Reinforced that decision-makers must act independently and according to statutory criteria.
Emphasized improper purpose includes exercising discretion based on irrelevant political motives.
3. Congreve v. Home Office, [1976] QB 629 (UK Court of Appeal)
Facts:
A license to operate a radio transmitter was revoked.
The licensee claimed the revocation was for an improper purpose, namely, to limit competition.
Issue:
Whether the power to revoke a license was exercised to achieve a collateral, improper objective.
Holding:
The Court of Appeal held the revocation was invalid as the true purpose was to suppress competition, which was outside the scope of the power.
Impact:
Showed that commercial or anti-competitive motives can constitute improper purpose.
Highlighted the importance of genuineness of purpose in administrative decisions.
4. Wheeler v. Leicester City Council, [1985] AC 1054 (UK House of Lords)
Facts:
The City Council expelled a rugby club from its premises after the club supported a controversial political cause.
The club argued the decision was made for an improper purpose (political suppression).
Issue:
Whether the council’s decision was made for an unauthorized purpose.
Holding:
The House of Lords held the council acted for an improper purpose.
Powers must not be used to penalize unpopular political views.
Impact:
Extended improper purpose doctrine to protect against political discrimination.
Emphasized abuse of discretion where power is used to suppress expression.
5. Port of London Authority v. Spartacus Investments Ltd, [2003] EWCA Civ 855 (UK Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Port authority terminated a lease purportedly under powers related to port management.
Lessee claimed termination was motivated by an improper purpose.
Issue:
Whether the port authority exercised powers for an improper collateral purpose.
Holding:
The Court of Appeal found evidence of an improper purpose and held the termination invalid.
Impact:
Demonstrated improper purpose doctrine applies in commercial and property contexts.
Courts carefully examine decision-makers’ motives.
6. R. v. East Berkshire Health Authority, ex parte Walsh, [1985] 1 WLR 1108 (UK)
Facts:
Health Authority refused to fund a treatment for political reasons.
Claimants alleged decision was for an improper purpose.
Issue:
Whether refusal was motivated by improper extraneous considerations.
Holding:
Court found the decision unlawful due to improper purposes.
Impact:
Reaffirmed that discretion must be exercised solely for statutory objectives.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture | 1968 | UK | Minister’s refusal for improper purpose | Power exercised unlawfully | Established improper purpose ground |
| R. v. Home Secretary ex parte Venables | 1998 | UK | Political pressure influencing decision | Decision invalid | Highlighted independence requirement |
| Congreve v. Home Office | 1976 | UK | Anti-competitive motive in license revocation | Revocation invalid | Emphasized genuine purpose |
| Wheeler v. Leicester City Council | 1985 | UK | Political suppression by council | Decision unlawful | Protected political expression |
| Port of London Authority v. Spartacus | 2003 | UK | Improper purpose in lease termination | Decision quashed | Applied to commercial powers |
| R. v. East Berkshire HA ex parte Walsh | 1985 | UK | Extraneous political reasons | Decision unlawful | Reaffirmed statutory objectives |
Application in U.S. Administrative Law
While much of the improper purpose doctrine originated in UK administrative law, U.S. courts have similarly scrutinized agency decisions for abuse of discretion and bad faith, which overlap with improper purpose:
In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that administrative decisions must not be arbitrary or capricious, a standard that can include improper purpose.
Courts invalidate agency actions when they are motivated by irrelevant factors, bad faith, or political considerations inconsistent with statutory purpose.
Improper purpose can also arise in contexts like zoning, licensing, and permitting at the municipal level.
Conclusion
Improper purpose is a fundamental ground of judicial review that prevents administrative powers from being misused for unauthorized or illegitimate ends. The doctrine ensures:
Powers are exercised bona fide and for the purposes intended by statute.
Decision-makers do not act under irrelevant or ulterior motives such as political pressure or anti-competitive aims.
Protection of rights and fairness in administrative action.
The cases discussed show a consistent judicial approach to probing the real purpose behind administrative decisions and striking down actions taken for improper reasons.
RELATED Blog
0 comments