 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "British Oxygen v Minister of Technology" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citations | UKHL 4, AC 610 |
| Keywords | |
| Judicial review | |
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology UKHL 4 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
Facts
British Oxygen claimed that it should be given grants by the Board of Trade for £4m it spent on gas cylinders costing £20 each, in its atmospheric gas and hydrogen manufacturing business. The Board had a discretionary power to give grants to help firms with capital expenditure under the Industrial Development Act 1966 s 13(1). Its policy was not to give grants for items under £25. British Oxygen Co. Ltd. argued that its application was turned down without properly considering its merits.
Judgment
The House of Lords accepted that the department was entitled to make a rule or policy, if it was prepared to listen to arguments for the exercise of individual discretion. On the facts, it was entitled to refuse the application.
Lord Reid said the following:
There may be cases where an officer or authority ought to listen to a substantial argument reasonably presented urging a change of policy. What the authority must not do is to refuse to listen at all. But a Ministry or large authority may have had to deal already with a multitude of similar applications and then they will almost certainly have evolved a policy so precise that it could well be called a rule. There can be no objection to that, provided the authority is always willing to listen to anyone with something new to say...
Lord Dilhorne said the right might be described as one to ask that the policy is changed.
Lord Morris, Lord Wilberforce, and Lord Diplock agreed.
See also
| Substantive judicial review cases | |
|---|---|
| Kruse v Johnson 2 QB 91 | |
| AP Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp 1 KB 223 | |
| Padfield v Minister of Agriculture AC 997 | |
| Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission 2 AC 147 | |
| British Oxygen v Minister of Technology AC 610 | |
| CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service AC 374 | |
| R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B (No 1) 1 WLR 898 | |
| R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary AC 407 | |
| Clark v University of Lincolnshire 1 WLR 1988 | |
| R (Daly) v SS for the Home Department 2 AC 532 | |
| R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon HA QB 213 | |
| Huang v Home Secretary UKSC 11 | |
| R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office UKHL 60 | |
| Ahmed v HM Treasury UKSC 2 | |
| R (Miller) v SS for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5 | |
| see UK constitutional law |
References
- British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1970] UKHL 4, 15 July 1970, retrieved 9 April 2019