Congreve v Home Office
A minister cannot use a statutory power to revoke licences for an improper purpose, such as stopping people from avoiding a lawful fee increase.
Facts
The Home Office announced that the fee for a colour television licence would rise from £12 to £18 from 1 April 1975. Mr Congreve, like over 20,000 others, bought a new licence at the old price before 1 April, while his existing licence was still running, so that he would not have to pay the higher fee until his new licence expired. The Home Office wrote to these licence holders demanding the extra £6 and threatening to revoke their licences, using its statutory power of revocation, if they did not pay.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the threatened revocation would be unlawful. Mr Congreve had acted lawfully in buying a new licence before the increase, and the Home Office could not use its power to revoke licences to extract money that Parliament had not authorised it to demand. Lord Denning MR said that the power of revocation could not be used as a lever to obtain money which the minister had no right to demand. Using the power for that purpose was a misuse of power, and the demand also offended the principle in the Bill of Rights 1689 that the Crown cannot levy money without the authority of Parliament.
Related cases on judicial review: illegality
- Attorney General v Fulham Corp [1921] 1 Ch 440
- Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18
- British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610
- Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768
- 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.
