The Principle of Reasonableness: The Wednesbury Legacy in Law and Life

Abstract

The principle of reasonableness, famously articulated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223, has emerged as one of the most enduring standards in law. Initially rooted in administrative law as a ground for judicial review, it has expanded into constitutional adjudication, contract law, tort law, criminal justice, and international human rights. Beyond its legal application, reasonableness functions as a guiding ideal in governance, ethics, and everyday human relationships. This article interrogates the Wednesbury principle, traces its doctrinal evolution across jurisdictions, evaluates its criticisms, and demonstrates its relevance to life beyond the courtroom.

1. Introduction

Law is fundamentally a system for ordering society. To function effectively, it requires standards by which conduct can be measured. Among the most pervasive of these is reasonableness, the idea that actions, decisions, and expectations must conform to what is fair, rational, and balanced in the circumstances.
In Wednesbury, Lord Greene MR gave judicial expression to this principle when he held that administrative decisions are unreasonable if they are “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.” Though born in English administrative law, this principle has since transcended boundaries, becoming a universal yardstick across multiple fields of law and informing moral judgments in daily life.

2. The Wednesbury Case and the Birth of Judicial Reasonableness

2.1 Facts and Decision.
In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), a cinema company challenged a local authority’s decision to condition its Sunday cinema license on excluding children under 15. The operators argued this was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal rejected the claim but laid down a doctrine that has shaped public law ever since. Lord Greene MR stated that courts can only intervene in administrative discretion where:

1. The authority takes into account irrelevant factors;
2. The authority ignores relevant factors; or
3. The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.

2.2 Significance

This became the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness, not mere unreasonableness, but unreasonableness so outrageous in its defiance of logic or moral standards as to be indefensible. It set a high threshold, designed to respect administrative autonomy while providing judicial oversight.

3. The Principle of Reasonableness in Different Branches of Law

3.1 Administrative and Constitutional Law

The Wednesbury principle became the bedrock of judicial review in the UK and common law jurisdictions. It has influenced doctrines worldwide:
In India, the doctrine of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19 of the Constitution imports a test of proportionality, blending Wednesbury with human rights scrutiny (Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) AIR 597).
In South Africa, reasonableness is entrenched in the Constitution (s. 33), with courts applying a proportionality test that evolved beyond Wednesbury (Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association v President of South Africa (2000) ZACC 1).
In Nigeria, reasonableness underpins Section 45 of the Constitution, which permits restrictions on rights only if they are “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.” Courts frequently rely on a Wednesbury-type analysis when reviewing executive and legislative acts.

3.2 Tort Law

Reasonableness is the cornerstone of negligence liability. From Alderson B’s definition in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) 11 Exch 781, negligence as doing what a reasonable man would not do, to the “reasonable foreseeability” test in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, tort law consistently invokes the reasonable person as a standard of care.

3.3 Contract Law

Contractual obligations are judged by what a reasonable person in the parties’ position would have understood. The objective theory of contract, affirmed in Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, ensures that agreements are not based on subjective intent but on reasonable expectations.
Reasonableness also guides doctrines of frustration, mitigation of damages, and the enforcement of exclusion clauses.

3.4 Criminal Law

Reasonableness mediates between culpability and fairness.
The reasonable person test determines whether provocation or duress excuses liability.
In self-defence, the force used must be “reasonable in the circumstances.”
The Model Penal Code in the U.S. similarly incorporates reasonableness into standards of recklessness and negligence.

3.5 International and Human Rights Law

International tribunals often test state actions against reasonableness and proportionality.
The European Court of Human Rights evaluates whether restrictions on rights are “necessary in a democratic society”, effectively a test of reasonableness.
The UN Human Rights Committee applies reasonableness in reviewing derogations from rights under the ICCPR.
Thus, Wednesbury has inspired a broader jurisprudence of global human rights accountability.

4. Beyond the Courtroom: Reasonableness in Life

4.1 Governance and Public Policy

Good governance depends on reasonableness. Policies must balance competing interests and withstand scrutiny as fair, rational, and proportional. The global critique of arbitrary authoritarian decisions echoes Wednesbury’s warning against absurdity.

4.2 Business and Commerce

In commerce, reasonableness guides consumer protection, labour relations, and corporate ethics. A business that sets unfair terms or imposes exploitative conditions may be acting legally but unreasonably, undermining trust and long-term sustainability.

4.3 Human Relationships

On a personal level, reasonableness is a virtue:

• Resolving conflicts through compromise rather than extremism.
• Exercising tolerance in diversity.
• Acting with empathy and balance in family and social life.

Thus, reasonableness emerges not just as a legal principle but as a moral philosophy for human coexistence.

5. Critiques and Evolution of the Wednesbury Standard

Despite its longevity, Wednesbury has been criticised for being vague and excessively deferential to authority. Critics argue that the standard of “so unreasonable” sets the bar too high for judicial intervention.
This led to the evolution of the proportionality test, now dominant in human rights law, which requires courts to examine:
1. Whether a measure pursues a legitimate aim;
2. Whether it is suitable to achieve that aim;
3. Whether it is necessary; and
4. Whether it strikes a fair balance between competing interests.
In many jurisdictions, proportionality has overtaken Wednesbury, but the latter remains a historical foundation.

6. Conclusion

The principle of reasonableness, crystallised in Wednesbury, transcends its administrative law origins. It pervades every branch of law, from tort to contract, from criminal law to constitutional adjudication, and extends into governance, business, and personal life.
Though criticised for vagueness, Wednesbury represents a milestone in legal thought: the insistence that power, private or public, must be exercised within the bounds of rationality and fairness. Ultimately, reasonableness is both a legal doctrine and a life principle, the bridge between law and morality, between rights and responsibilities, between self and society.