Lovelock v Minister of Transport: 1980

Lord Denning said: ‘Assuming that he did fail to take into account a relevant consideration, the result is that, in point of legal theory, his consent was ‘void’. It was made without jurisdiction. It was a nullity. Just as if he had failed to observe the rules of natural justice. But, in point of practice, it was ‘voidable’.’ It seems to me to be a matter of words – semantics – and that is all. I have got tired of all the discussion about ‘void’ and ‘voidable’. The plain fact is that, even if such a decision as this is ‘void’ or a ‘nullity’, it remains in being unless and until some steps are taken before the courts to have it declared void. As Lord Radcliffe said long ago in Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council: ‘It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders’. That point of view was adopted by the House of Lords in F. Hoffman-La Roche and Co. A.G. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by Lord Reid and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.
So, even if there was anything wrong in what the Secretary of State did – even if he did fail to take into account a relevant consideration – even if there was any failure of natural justice in that or any other regard – this consent remained valid and effective for all purposes, and for people to act on it, unless and until steps were taken to call it in question. No steps were taken until the appeal was opened in this court . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

(1980) 40 PCR 336

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMackaill and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission Admn 6-Oct-2014
The three claimants were police officers. They met a senior MP at Sutton Coldfield. They emerged from the meeting and were said to have made misleading statements as to the content of the meeting. The IPCC referred the matters back to local forces . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.537359