Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration: 1963

The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must meet the requirement that reasons must be adequate to see how it was reached.
Megaw J said: ‘Parliament provided that reasons shall be given, and in my view that must be read as meaning that proper, adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intelligible, but which deal with the substantial points that have been raised.’ There must be something ‘substantially wrong or inadequate’ in the reasons given before it can be set aside. The reasons can be briefly stated.
Megaw J
[1963] 1 All ER 612, [1964] 2 QB 467
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 12
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Admn 31-Aug-2001
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
CitedRegina v District Auditor, Gateshead ex parte Judge P CA 8-Nov-1996
The objector sought leave to appeal. He had objected to spending on a war memorial. The district auditor when declining to intervene had given his reasons. The claimant objected that he should have waited before giving those reasons.
Held: . .
AppliedEdwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
CitedSouth Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
CitedHope v Secretary of State for the Environment 1975
. .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
ApprovedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedWilliam Cook Estates and Northern Land Management Limited v Secretary of State for Environment and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Somerfield Stores Limited CA 18-Mar-1998
. .
CitedPogonowska, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Camden Admn 5-Nov-2008
The appellant challenged a decision of the Valuation Tribunal. The Council responded that as an appeal of fact it was not allowed. . .
CitedUprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
CitedAA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; Ref: scu.183438