Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

Last updated

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Dairy Crest milk float (modified).jpg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameR (on the application of Padfield and others) v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others
Decided1968
Citation(s)[1968] UKHL 1, [1968] AC 997
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
Case opinions
A minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act.
Keywords
Judicial review

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] UKHL 1 is a United Kingdom administrative law case, concerning judicial review.

Contents

Facts

Padfield and other milk producers in the South East Region argued they should get more milk subsidies to reflect growing transport costs, and applied to court to compel the minister to appoint an investigation.

The Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 section 19 said a committee of the Milk Marketing Board can investigate "if the Minister so directs" after a complaint on a scheme's operation if it cannot be considered by a consumers' committee (subsection 3(b)), and if it reports a scheme is "contrary to the interests of consumers of the regulated products" or "any persons affected by the scheme" and is "not in the public interest" the minister can amend the scheme, revoke it or direct the board to rectify it (subsection 6).

There were eleven milk regions with different prices for milk, fixed depending on costs of transporting milk from producers to consumers. All milk producers had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board. Differentials had been fixed a few years earlier and transport costs had changed.

The SE region argued the difference between it and the Far Western Region should be altered: this would incidentally affect other regions. Board members were elected by individual regions, so it was impossible for SE producers to get a majority for their proposals.

They asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Fred Peart) to appoint a committee of investigation, but he refused. They requested mandamus (specifically, a court order requiring the Minister to appoint the Committee).

Judgment

Court of Appeal

Diplock LJ and Russell LJ held the minister's discretion could not be challenged. Lord Denning MR dissented.

House of Lords

The House of Lords, reversing the Court of Appeal, held that a minister's discretion to refuse an investigation was subject to judicial review where a refusal would frustrate the policy of an Act. An order should be made to direct the minister to consider the complaint.

Lord Reid said:

[The] policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court. In a matter of this kind it is not possible to draw a hard and fast line, but if the Minister, by reason of his having misconstrued the Act or for any other reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy and objects of the Act, then our law would be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to the protection of the court.

Lord Upjohn said that if the minister

does not give any reason for his decision it may be ... that a court may be at liberty to come to the conclusion that he had no good reason for reaching that conclusion and order a prerogative writ to issue accordingly. [1]

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissented.

See also

Notes

  1. [1968] AC 997, 1062

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (United Kingdom)</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) was a United Kingdom government department created by the Board of Agriculture Act 1889 and at that time called the Board of Agriculture, and then from 1903 the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and from 1919 the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. It attained its final name in 1955 with the addition of responsibilities for the British food industry to the existing responsibilities for agriculture and the fishing industry, a name that lasted until the Ministry was dissolved in 2002, at which point its responsibilities had been merged into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Wheat Board</span> Defunct Canadian marketing board

The Canadian Wheat Board was a marketing board for wheat and barley in Western Canada. Established by the Parliament of Canada on 5 July 1935, its operation was governed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act as a mandatory producer marketing system for wheat and barley in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and a small part of British Columbia. It was illegal for any farmer in areas under the CWB's jurisdiction to sell their wheat and barley through any other channel than the CWB. Although often called a monopoly, it was actually a monopsony since it was the only buyer of wheat and barley. It was a marketing agency acting on behalf of Western Canadian farmers, passing all profits from its operation back to farmers. Its market power over wheat and barley marketing was referred to as the "Single Desk".

A marketing board is an organization created by many producers to try to market their product and increase consumption and thus prices. It can also be defined as an organization set up by a government to regulate the buying and selling of a certain commodity within a specified area. They most commonly exist to help sell farm products such as milk, eggs, beef or tripe and are funded by the farmers or processors of those crops or products. Marketing boards often also receive funding from governments as an agricultural subsidy. The leadership and strategies of the marketing boards are set through votes by the farmers who are members of the board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second MacDonald ministry</span> Government of the UK from 1929 to 1931, formed by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald

The second MacDonald ministry was formed by Ramsay MacDonald on his reappointment as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by King George V on 5 June 1929. It was only the second time the Labour Party had formed a government; the First MacDonald Ministry held office in 1924.

In the United States, a commodity checkoff program promotes and provides research and information for a particular agricultural commodity without reference to specific producers or brands. It collects funds through a checkoff mechanism that is sometimes called checkoff dollars, from producers of a particular agricultural commodity and uses these funds to promote and do research on that particular commodity. As stated earlier the organizations must promote their commodity in a generic way without reference to a particular producer. Checkoff programs attempt to improve the market position of the covered commodity by expanding markets, increasing demand, and developing new uses and markets. Checkoff programs amount to $750 million per year.

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum fat content standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the sale of avocados that did not contain at least 8% oil by weight. Florida, a major avocado producer, employed, for wholesale marketing purposes, a federal standard unrelated to oil content. Most Florida avocados that were marketable at home failed to meet the California standard, because they were a different variety from those sold in California, with a lower fat content. Accordingly, Florida avocado growers brought this suit, arguing (unsuccessfully) that the California law (1) was preempted by federal law, (2) violated equal protection, and (3) unduly burdened and interfered with their right to engage in interstate commerce. The case is widely used in law school casebooks on constitutional law and federal jurisdiction as illustrative of preemption issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Isle of Man Government</span> Government of the Isle of Man

The Isle of Man Government is the government of the Isle of Man. The formal head of the Isle of Man Government is the Lieutenant Governor, the personal representative of Charles III. The executive head is the Chief Minister.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) is a government department in the Northern Ireland Executive, the devolved administration for Northern Ireland. The minister with overall responsibility for the department is the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The department was called the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development between 1999 and 2016. The Minister of Agriculture previously existed in the Government of Northern Ireland (1921–1972), where the department was known as the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland or the Ministry of Agriculture. The current Permanent Secretary is Denis McMahon.

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1980 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election</span> 1980 legislative assembly elections in Tamil Nadu

The seventh legislative assembly election to Tamil Nadu was held on 28 May 1980. The election was held two years before the end of the term of M. G. Ramachandran administration, as it was dissolved for the failure of state machinery by the then President of India Neelam Sanjiva Reddy. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam allied with the Indian National Congress (Indira) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam with Janata Party. Despite their landslide victory of 37 out of 39 seats at the general election in January 1980, DMK and Indira Congress failed to win the legislative assembly election. AIADMK won the election and its leader and incumbent Chief Minister MGR was sworn in as Chief Minister for the second time.

The Market Sharing Quota (MSQ), In Canadian agricultural policy, is the federally-determined target for the amount of industrial milk to produce nationwide each year as part of its policy of supply management. It is determined by estimating the domestic demand for dairy products on a butterfat basis, adding about 3% to cover exports and subtracting the volume of approved imports.

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegality in Singapore administrative law</span> Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. It is regarded as a form of illegality. An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body. If the High Court finds that a decision-maker has fettered its discretion, it may hold the decision to be ultra vires – beyond the decision-maker's powers – and grant the applicant a suitable remedy such as a quashing order to invalidate the decision.

<i>Fish Canneries Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v British Columbia (AG), also known as the Reference as to constitutional validity of certain sections of The Fisheries Act, 1914 and the Fish Canneries Reference, is a significant decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canada. It is also significant, in that it represented a major victory in the fight against discrimination aimed at Japanese Canadians, which was especially prevalent in British Columbia in the early part of the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy and poultry supply management in Canada</span>

Canada's supply management, abbreviated SM, is a national agricultural policy framework used across the country, which controls the supply of dairy, poultry and eggs through production and import controls and pricing mechanisms. The supply management system was authorized by the 1972 Farm Products Agencies Act, which established the two national agencies that oversee the system. The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada federal department is responsible for both the Canadian Dairy Commission and its analogue for eggs, chicken and turkey products, the Farm Products Council of Canada. Five national supply management organizations, the SM-5 Organizations — Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC), Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC), Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC), the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP) and the Ottawa-based Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation — in collaboration with provincial and national governing agencies, organizations and committees, administer the supply management system.

Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 is a UK labour law case, concerning trade union regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018</span> United Kingdom legislation

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provides both for repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and for parliamentary approval to be required for any withdrawal agreement negotiated between the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Union. The bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament was completed on 20 June 2018 and it became law by Royal Assent on 26 June.