Padfield v Minister [1968]

Agricultural
Marketing Act 1958 provided for reference of certain complaints to committee of
investigation ‘if the Minister in any case so directs’.
Minister
refused to act on complaint referred to him.
But
his decision inconsistent with policy of Act, which was that relevant and
substantial complaints should go to Committee in absence of good reasons to
contrary.
House
of Lords held that the permissive words gave Minister discretion, but he was
not entitled to use his discretion to thwart policy of Act.