Asha Foundation, R (On the Application Of) v Millennium Commission

A public body making a discretionary funding decision should give reasons which are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. The required detail depends on the nature of the decision and the practical burden of explaining it.

Where an eligible application is rejected for a specific reason, that reason should be identified. Where limited funds require a collective, comparative assessment of competing eligible applications, it may be sufficient to state that other applications were preferred. A promise to explain a rejection ordinarily requires reasons appropriate to the circumstances. It does not necessarily require a detailed comparison of every application or an account of each decision-maker’s views.

The Asha Foundation applied to the Millennium Commission for a £10 million capital grant to establish a museum celebrating British multiculturalism. The Commission found the application eligible but rejected it because competing applications were considered more attractive. Its application materials had stated that unsuccessful applicants would receive an explanation.

Lightman J dismissed Asha’s application for judicial review, which alleged inadequate reasons and misdirection. Asha appealed. The principal issue was whether fairness or the Commission’s promise required a fuller explanation of its comparative funding decision.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Lord Chief Justice delivered the leading judgment. Lady Justice Hale and Lord Justice Latham agreed.

2. A body making a discretionary funding decision should, as a matter of good administration and fairness, give reasons appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Reasons focus the decision-maker on the relevant considerations and give an affected person a practicable opportunity to determine whether the decision was lawfully made. The obligation does not invariably require detailed reasons.

3. The considerations identified in R v Higher Education Funding Council, Ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242 apply both when deciding whether fairness requires reasons and when determining their required quality. The court must balance the benefits of reasons against burdens such as articulating diverse or inexpressible value judgments, supplying extensive comparative material and encouraging unmeritorious challenges.

4. If an application fails an eligibility criterion, or an eligible application is rejected for a particular independent reason, that criterion or reason should be identified. A different standard applies where the decision consists of a collective preference among competing eligible applications. Detailed reasons would require disclosure of the applications and potentially each commissioner’s views. That would impose an undue and impracticable administrative burden.

5. The Commission therefore did enough by confirming that Asha’s application was eligible and explaining that other eligible applications were preferred after comparative assessment. The promise to explain a rejection required reasons appropriate to the circumstances. It did not create a legitimate expectation of a detailed comparison or an account of every commissioner’s reasoning.

6. The misdirection ground also failed. Given the permissible brevity of the reasons and the absence of material indicating that the Commission had disregarded its statutory considerations, criteria or guidelines, there was no basis for concluding that it had misdirected itself.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously, with costs. Permission to appeal was refused.

2. High Court, Administrative Court: Lightman J dismissed the application for judicial review on 14 May 2002. He rejected the challenges based on inadequate reasons and misdirection.