Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in those regions had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board, which had fixed the price for milk several years before, by reference to transport costs. The south-eastern region wished to amend the scheme, but could not get a majority on the Board so made a complaint to the Minister. The Minister refused to refer the matter to a committee of investigation, and an application for mandamus (the old name for a mandatory order) was made to the court. The House of Lords concluded that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose.
Answer
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in those regions had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board, which had fixed the price for milk several years before, by reference to transport costs. The south-eastern region wished to amend the scheme, but could not get a majority on the Board so made a complaint to the Minister. The Minister refused to refer the matter to a committee of investigation, and an application for mandamus (the old name for a mandatory order) was made to the court. The House of Lords concluded that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in those regions had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board, which had fixed the price for milk several years before, by reference to transport costs. The south-eastern region wished to amend the scheme, but could not get a majority on the Board so made a complaint to the Minister. The Minister refused to refer the matter to a committee of investigation, and an application for mandamus (the old name for a mandatory order) was made to the court. The House of Lords concluded that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose.
Answer
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.