Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 1965

The Minister had decided to confirm a CPO of premises which were now alleged not to be a house as was required by the legislation under which the order was made.
Held: The court can interfere if the decision maker has taken into account a consideration which is immaterial, or failed to take account of a consideration which is material.
The court considered how to look at further evidence in deciding whether the minister had acted outside his powers. Lord Denning said: ‘The court can only interfere on the ground that the Minister has gone outside the powers of the Act or that any requirement of the Act has not been complied with. Under this section it seems to me that the court can interfere with the Minister’s decision if he has acted on no evidence; or if he has come to a conclusion to which on the evidence he could not reasonably come: or if he has given a wrong interpretation to the words of the statute; or if he has taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into account, or vice versa; or has otherwise gone wrong in law’ and
‘Fresh evidence should not be admitted save in exceptional circumstances. It is not correct for the courts to approach the case absolutely de novo as though the court was sitting to decide the matter in the first instance. The court can receive evidence to show what material was before the Minister; but it cannot receive evidence of the kind which was indicated in the present case so as to decide the whole matter afresh.’

Lord Denning MR
[1965] 1 WLR 1320, [1965] 3 All ER 371
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMoase and Lomas v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and South West Water Limited CA 16-Jun-2000
Objection to compulsory purchase order. . .
CitedPersimmon Homes (North West) Ltd and others v The First Secretary of State and Another Admn 25-Oct-2006
. .
CitedDe Bierre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 21-Jan-2008
. .
CitedBridgewood Rochester Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 26-Feb-2008
. .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedDay and Another v Hosebay Ltd SC 10-Oct-2012
The Court considered the provisions for leasehold enfranchisement now that the residence requirement had been removed by the 2002 Act, and in particular the extent to which, at all, it had allowed enfranchisement to be available to commercial . .
CitedRegina v The Secretary of State for the Environment, ex Parte Ostler CA 16-Mar-1976
Statutory Challenge must be timely
The applicant had not taken objection to a proposed road scheme believing wrongly that it would not affect his business. Other objectors had withdrawn because of secret re-assurances given to them by the respondent.
Held: The court was asked, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Administrative

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.267003