• In the case of R v Port of London Authority ex parte Kynoch Ltd 1919 1 KB 176 it was established that the fettering of discretion was a legitimate ground for Judicial Review and the body will be acting illegally if it refuses to hear applications for exceptions to be granted under the policy.

Facts of the Case

  • The Port of London Authority are by s.2 and sub s.1 of the Port of London Act 1908, charged with the duty of considering the state of the river and the accommodation afforded in the Port of London and of taking such steps as they consider necessary for the improvement thereof; and for these purposes they are enabled to construct, equip, maintain, or manage any docks, quays. Wharves, jetties, &c.
  • By s.109 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894 and s.7 of the Port of London Act 1908, the Port authority may grant to any owner of land adjoining the Thames a licence to make any dock, basin, pier jetty, wharf, & C.
  • By s.7, sub s.2 of the later Act, if the Port authority refuse to grant a licence for such a purpose on reasonable terms, the applicant may appeal to the Board of Trade.
  • Owners of land adjoining the Thames having applied for permission to construct a deep-water wharf and other extensive works, the ort authority in November of 1817, refused the application on the ground that the accommodation applied for was of the character of that which Parliament had charged the authority with the duty of providing.
  • In September of 1918, the applicants applied for and obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus commanding the authority to consider and exercise their discretion according to law upon the application.

Issues in R v Port of London Authority ex parte Kynoch Ltd 1919 1 KB 176

  • Is fettering a decision a legitimate ground for Judicial Review.  

Held by Court of Appeal

  • The decision of the authority was upheld.
  • Before reaching their decision, the authority had fully considered the case on its merits and in relation to the public interest.

Bankes LJ

  • The Port Authority, in view of their position, powers and duties, were warranted in adopting a general policy in granting licences under s.109 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894.
  • If the decision of the Port of Authority amounted to a refusal to exercise their discretion according to law, an appeal to the Board of Trade under s.7, sub s.2, of the Port of London Act 1908, was convenient, beneficial, and effectual a remedy as that by way of mandamus.

Scrutton L.JJ

“Now I state it as my view, because it is the substantial question in this case and that which the parties want decided, that the Port authority representing various interests in the Port are by virtue of the Act entitled in this matter of granting licences to regard the effect of the proposed accommodation upon the accommodation which they themselves have provided,. or may have to provide, in discharge of their statutory duty. An applicant who cannot obtain a licence from the Port authority has his remedy by appeal to the Board of Trade,. or he may promote a Bill in Parliament authorizing his- undertaking. On this point, which goes to the merits, Mr.. Talbot fails to show that the Port authority has taken into- consideration, in the words of Wills J. (1), ” matters has taken into- consideration, in the words of Wills J. (1).”  P.12

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.