Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, [1968] UKHL 1

This case is about limits on government discretion. Farmers said milk prices were unfair because transport costs had risen. The statute allowed a committee of investigation when the Minister referred a complaint. The Minister refused, fearing political and economic fallout.

The House of Lords held that such refusal defeated the Act’s purpose. A Minister cannot use a broad power to block a safeguard that Parliament created. Discretion must serve the statute, not bury it.

• Was the Minister’s refusal to refer the complaint lawful under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958?
• Can discretion be used to avoid the very mechanism meant to check unfair pricing?

Key Rule: Discretion under a statute must be used to advance the statute’s purpose, not to frustrate it.

• Refusal is unlawful if it makes a statutory safeguard useless.
• Political inconvenience is not a valid reason to ignore a statutory remedy.

The House of Lords held the refusal unlawful. The Act intended complaints to be investigated when appropriate. Avoiding referral for political reasons defeats that intention.

If the Minister refuses to trigger the safeguard, the remedy granted by Parliament becomes meaningless. Discretion is not a shield against the Act’s purpose.

Statutory discretion must be exercised to promote the policy and objects of the Act. A refusal that frustrates a statutory safeguard is an improper exercise of power and is reviewable.

• Protects statutory remedies from being ignored.
• Guides how broad powers should be read—always toward the Act’s aim.
• Strengthens judicial review against improper purpose.

1. Discretion is not absolute; it is tied to the statute’s purpose.
2. Political inconvenience is not a lawful ground to deny a statutory safeguard.
3. Court will step in when power is used to stifle Parliament’s remedy.

Mnemonic: “PAD the PURPOSE” — Padfield enforces the purpose of the Act.

1. Point: Discretion must serve the Act.
2. Apply: Refusal that blocks a safeguard is improper.
3. Decide: Court can order action consistent with the Act’s aim.

Issue: Was the Minister’s refusal to refer the complaint lawful?

Rule: Discretion cannot be used to frustrate the Act’s purpose.

Application: Refusal avoided the committee safeguard created by the Act; reason given was political inconvenience, not statutory purpose.

Conclusion: Refusal unlawful; discretion must be exercised to advance the statute.

Statutory Discretion

A power given by law that must be used fairly and for proper purposes.

Committee of Investigation

A fact-finding body under the Act to check alleged unfairness.

Improper Purpose

Using power for a reason that the statute does not allow.