Regina (Asha Foundation) v Millenium Commission: CA 16 Jan 2003

The applicant had applied for funding to the Millennium Commission. It now appealed a refusal to order the respondent to give full reasons for its decision.
Held: The applicant requested what it called meaningful reasons. The importance of giving reasons for an administrative decision was correctly emphasised, but that did not extend indefinitely, and must be balanced against issues of practicality. Where a decision had been reached by a majority of a committee it would not normally assist to identify the several views of committee members. A duty existed here, but the question was then what standard or extent of reasons were to be given. The same logic should continue to be applied when assessing what extent of explanation should be applied. The applicant sought to place an undue burden on the respondent. It was sufficient for them to have said that other applications were preferred.
Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ
Times 24-Jan-2003, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 88
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Universities Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery QBD 30-Jul-1993
When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical ‘where the decision appears aberrant’. ‘the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right . .
Appeal fromAsha Foundation, Regina (on the Application of) v The Millennium Commission Admn 14-May-2002
The appellant challenged the decision of the Commission not to award a grant, and alleged that the failure to give reasons for its decision vitiated that decision.
Held: The commission was not adjudicating on a question of fact, but making a . .

Cited by:
Appealed toAsha Foundation, Regina (on the Application of) v The Millennium Commission Admn 14-May-2002
The appellant challenged the decision of the Commission not to award a grant, and alleged that the failure to give reasons for its decision vitiated that decision.
Held: The commission was not adjudicating on a question of fact, but making a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.178778