- Cited — Competition and Markets Authority v Apple Inc & Ors 2023-11-30
“…[1968] AC 997. Mr Williams KC, for the CMA, expressly conceded that the power in 131(1) EA 2002 was subject to such constraints. In written submissions the CMA set out a num…”
- Cited — Piffs Elm Limited, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor. 2023-05-10
“…efore, simply be limited to the circumstances for which the Ombudsman argued. Subject to the doctrine in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, no obvious limit on those circumstances can be derived from the words of the statute. That point should have given Judge 2 pause. Moreover, as Judge 2’s reaso…”
- Cited — Kaitey (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-12-10
“…Secondly, those limits flow from the strict application of the Padfield principle (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food[1968] AC 997) and the need to act reasonably in the Wednesbury sense: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation[1948] 1 KB 223.…”
- Cited — Christian Concern, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care 2020-09-25
“…Ground 6: The Decision is contrary to the legislative purpose of the 1967 Act (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997):…”
- Cited — Christian Concern, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care 2020-09-25
“…The Claimant relies on the well-known principle in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, that no statutory power is unfettered: it must be exercised so as to promote the purpose of the statute conferring it and not to frustrate that purpose.…”
- Cited — Secretary of State for Work And Pensions v Johnson & Ors 2020-06-22
“…of the public sector equality duty and Ms Woods alleged a breach of the Padfield principle (named after Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997), asserting that the Regulations undermine the purpose of the primary legislation. Neither of them raised an issue about the interpretation of regulation 54. E…”
- Cited — Badmus & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2020-05-20
“… legal principle underlying this ground of appeal, Mr Blundell submitted that it is a Padfield argument (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997). Mr Southey did not dissent from that in his oral submissions. As it is not part of the appellants’ case that the 2001 Rules were outside the scope of section…”
- Cited — Boskovic, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police 2019-04-16
“…it must be exercised so as to promote the policy and objectives of the regulations: Padfield and others v Minister ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food and others [1968] AC 997. Before him, Mr HollAllen, who appeared for the police authority in that case as he does before us, submitted that the clear purpose of regulation 32(2) was no…”
- Cited — Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2018-06-06
“…nce the Secretary of State was acting in accordance with the statutory purposes authorised. Referring to Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 and R (Rights of Women) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 91, [2016] 1 WLR 2543, he said that that required an analysis of t…”