Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
Facts
The Monopolies Commission led an inquiry on the profit making of C regarding patented drugs. D, the Trade and Industry Secretary, set to Parliament the first out of three consecutive statutory order directing the Cs to make amendments to the prices of their patented drugs, which was approved. C informed the Trade and Industry Secretary of their intentions of not obeying the orders and subsequently claimed that the procedures chosen fell afoul of natural justice and that the order breached the law. The Trade and Industry Secretary applied to the court for an injunction against C from profiting over that which was stated in the order.
Legal Issue
Could the court restrain non-compliance with the price-control order pending its legal challenge, and did parliamentary approval prevent review of the order’s statutory validity?
Held
The House of Lords upheld the interim injunction sought by the Secretary of State. The company’s challenge to the price-control order did not itself prevent enforcement while validity remained to be determined. The party resisting the injunction had to identify a sufficient reason why justice required refusal or conditions. At the same time, the court confirmed that subordinate legislation could be reviewed for exceeding its statutory authority, whether through its content or defects in the procedure by which it was made. Parliamentary approval did not remove that jurisdiction. The case therefore preserved both judicial supervision of delegated legislation and the availability of interim enforcement in the circumstances before the court.
⭐ Legal Principle
In the case of Hoffmann La Roche v Trade and Industry Secretary [1975] ac 295, it was found that there is a possibility for the courts to dispute the validity of subordinate legislation regardless of whether it has been approved by Parliament. The individual subject to an interim injunction to enforce the legislation is burdened with demonstrating why justice requires that there should be no injunction against them or that is should be on specific terms.
Significance
Hoffmann-La Roche distinguishes an order’s legal status from the practical question of interim enforcement while a challenge is pending. Parliamentary approval of subordinate legislation does not transform it into unreviewable primary legislation. Nevertheless, alleging invalidity does not automatically excuse disobedience or prevent interim relief. The court must address the circumstances and justice of the application. The case is therefore relevant both to ultra vires review and to the limits of treating an unresolved challenge as a licence to disregard a regulatory scheme.
Common exam questions about this case
Did parliamentary approval make the order immune from review?
No. Subordinate legislation remains dependent on the powers conferred by its parent Act. The courts may examine whether its content or the procedure used in making it exceeded those powers, even where Parliament approved the order. Approval does not give a minister the same unrestricted legislative authority as primary legislation.
Could the company avoid interim enforcement merely by alleging invalidity?
No. An unresolved legal challenge did not automatically prevent an interim injunction enforcing the order. The court considered whether there was a special reason to refuse relief or impose terms. It distinguished the eventual validity question from the practical need to regulate conduct while that question remained undecided.
What kinds of ultra vires defect were recognised?
The judgment recognised defects in the order’s content and defects in the procedure leading to its making. Both depend on the enabling statute and applicable legal requirements. The distinction helps structure a challenge: identify what the minister was authorised to do and the lawful process required before exercising that authority.