Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
A body with disciplinary powers conferred by statute cannot delegate them to another person without authority to do so.
Facts
Under a statutory dock labour scheme, local dock labour boards had the power to discipline dock workers. The London Dock Labour Board delegated its disciplinary functions to the port manager, who suspended Mr Barnard and other dock workers after a dispute. The Board later ratified the port manager's decision. The dock workers sought a declaration that the suspension was unlawful.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the suspension was unlawful. The scheme gave the disciplinary power to the Board, and there was nothing in the scheme authorising it to delegate that power to the port manager. Judicial or quasi judicial functions, such as disciplinary powers, cannot be delegated unless the statute authorises delegation. The Board's later ratification could not cure the defect, because the Board could not ratify something it had no power to delegate in the first place. Denning LJ said that a body exercising judicial functions must act personally, and cannot hand over its functions to another.
Related cases on judicial review: illegality
- Attorney General v Fulham Corp [1921] 1 Ch 440
- British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610
- Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768
- Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629
- Lavender & Son Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231
- Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
- R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37, [2021] 1 WLR 3931
- R (Rights of Women) v Lord Chancellor [2016] EWCA Civ 91, [2016] 1 WLR 2543
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
