Carltona Principle: Delegation of Powers

Introduction

Public bodies make thousands of decisions each day. UK administrative law sets the rules for who may take those decisions and how they are taken. One key rule is the Carltona principle, from Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560. It means a minister’s powers may be exercised by officials within the minister’s department, with the decision treated in law as the minister’s own.

This guide explains when Carltona applies, how it sits alongside express statutory delegation, what the limits are, and how to keep decisions lawful and defensible. We use leading cases to show how courts review departmental, local authority, and police decision-making.

What You’ll Learn

• What the Carltona principle is and when departmental officials can act for a minister
• How Carltona differs from express delegation and sub-delegation
• The default rule against sub-delegation and when Parliament permits it
• Key limits: statutory wording, independent judgment requirements, and fairness safeguards
• How local authorities delegate under the Local Government Act 1972
• Practical steps to set up a workable scheme of authorisation and record decisions properly
• Case summaries: Carltona, Oladehinde, Bourgass, Vine, Lavender, and DPP v Haw

Core Concepts

The Carltona principle

• Core idea: Where a statutory power is conferred on a minister, an official in the same department may usually take the decision on the minister’s behalf. In law, it is treated as the minister’s act.
• Rationale: Ministers could not personally decide every matter. Departmental structures and responsibility allow trained officials to act in the minister’s name.
• Scope and conditions:
  • Same department: The official must be part of the minister’s department or an executive agency within it.
  • Suitable seniority: The decision should be taken at an appropriate level, reflecting its importance and statutory context.
  • No need for express wording: Carltona operates by implication unless Parliament indicates otherwise.
  • Accountability remains: The minister is answerable to Parliament and the courts for actions taken by departmental staff.

Practical points within departments:

• Maintain a written scheme of authorisation that identifies posts (not just names), levels, and categories of decisions.
• Provide guidance on when to escalate decisions to senior officials or the minister.
• Keep a clear record: who decided, their role/grade, the statutory power used, the material considered, and reasons.

Express delegation and the rule against sub-delegation

• General rule: A person or body given a discretion must exercise it themselves. A delegate cannot pass it on to another unless Parliament authorises this or it is necessarily implied.
• Express statutory delegation: Many statutes grant powers to delegate. For local authorities, section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 allows councils to delegate functions to committees, sub-committees, officers, or other authorities.
• Agency vs delegation: Asking someone to gather information or provide a recommendation is not the same as handing over the power to decide. The latter requires legal authority.

Key cases:

• Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] AC 488: A board unlawfully delegated disciplinary decisions to a port manager. Decisions were quashed.
• Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18: Similar principle applied, emphasising that statutory powers must be exercised by the designated body unless authorised otherwise.

Limits and exclusions

Carltona is broad, but not boundless. Watch for:

• Statutory wording requiring a personal decision: If the Act or Rules say the minister must act “personally” or build in safeguards requiring independent judgment, Carltona may be limited.
• Independent authorisation safeguards: In R (Bourgass) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] UKSC 54, the Supreme Court held that authorisation of a prisoner’s segregation beyond 72 hours could not be made by the governor; it required a level of independence from the prison’s day-to-day management. Carltona could not be used to weaken those safeguards.
• Fettering by another authority’s views: The decision-maker may not simply defer to another minister or body unless the statute allows this. In H Lavender & Son Ltd v Minister of Housing [1970] 1 WLR 1231, refusal of planning permission because another minister objected was unlawful; the housing minister had to exercise his own judgment.
• External contractors and non-departmental bodies: Carltona applies within the minister’s department. Transferring decisions to an external contractor or a separate public body requires express statutory authority.
• Major or sensitive decisions: There is no blanket rule that such decisions cannot be taken under Carltona. However, as a matter of good administration and fairness, the more serious the consequences, the stronger the case for decision-making at a senior level or, where required, by the minister personally.

Oversight, fairness, and record-keeping

• Fair procedures: Where rights or interests are affected, public law may require notice, a chance to make representations, and reasons (Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 is a leading case on reasons in certain contexts).
• Reasons and audit: Provide clear reasons and keep the decision file complete. This protects the department in judicial review and supports parliamentary accountability.
• Parliamentary scrutiny: Committees such as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee examine how government operates, including use of delegated powers.
• Judicial review: Courts will examine whether the right person decided, whether any statutory limits were respected, and whether the process was fair and rational.

Key Examples or Case Studies

Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560

• Context: War-time requisition of property was approved by a senior official, not the minister.
• Key point: A decision by a departmental official was treated as the minister’s own. No express delegation was required.
• Practical outcome: Departments may structure decision-making through officials, with ministerial accountability intact.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254

• Context: Deportation decisions were taken by immigration officials.
• Key point: The House of Lords confirmed such decisions fell within Carltona. Officials could decide in the name of the Home Secretary.
• Practical outcome: High-stakes decisions (including immigration) can be taken by properly authorised officials, provided statute does not require personal ministerial action.

R (Bourgass) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] UKSC 54

• Context: Segregation of prisoners beyond 72 hours under the Prison Rules was authorised by officials linked to the prison service.
• Key point: Where the rules build in an independent safeguard, authorisation must be by someone sufficiently independent of the prison’s day-to-day management. Carltona cannot be used to reduce that safeguard.
• Practical outcome: Read the statute or rules closely. If they require independent or personal judgment, structure the process accordingly and keep independence clear on the record.

Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] AC 488

• Context: A statutory board delegated disciplinary powers to a port manager.
• Key point: Unlawful sub-delegation. A body given the power must exercise it unless Parliament allows delegation.
• Practical outcome: Check for express powers to delegate. If absent, the body itself must decide, even if it takes advice from officers.

DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin)

• Context: Police authorisations around Parliament Square protests under the then SOCPA regime.
• Key point: Delegation within the policing framework was permitted where the legislation and scheme of delegation allowed it.
• Practical outcome: Police and regulators should adopt clear schemes, rooted in their enabling Acts, to show who may authorise and at what level.

H Lavender & Son Ltd v Minister of Housing [1970] 1 WLR 1231

• Context: Planning decision refused because another minister objected.
• Key point: The minister unlawfully fettered his discretion by deferring to a different minister’s view.
• Practical outcome: Consult other departments by all means, but the named decision-maker must reach and record their own judgment.

Practical Applications

Set up decision-making that is both efficient and lawful:

For government departments

• Map the power: Identify the precise statutory source and any wording that hints at personal decision or independent review.
• Scheme of authorisation: Publish (internally) a post-based scheme stating who may decide which categories of case and at what level. Include escalation rules for sensitive matters.
• Training and templates: Provide staff with templates for decision notices, reasons, and file notes. Highlight fairness steps (notice, representations, reasons).
• Seniority thresholds: Set clear thresholds so that more serious, novel, or legally risky decisions are taken by senior officials or the minister.
• Records: On every file, record the decision-maker’s name, post/grade, authority relied on (Carltona or express delegation), date, evidence considered, and reasons.
• Independence where required: Where rules require independent authorisation (for example, segregation beyond a time limit), keep decision-makers separate from day-to-day operations and document that separation.
• External providers: If operational tasks are outsourced, specify in contracts that the provider does not decide statutory questions unless the statute permits this and a lawful delegation instrument exists.

For local authorities

• Use section 101 LGA 1972: Maintain an up-to-date scheme of delegation to committees and officers, with published officer decision logs where required by transparency rules.
• Individual officer decisions: Ensure officers record the statutory power used, their authority under the scheme, and reasons.
• Committees and sub-committees: Minute decisions clearly and avoid deferring decisions to bodies that lack the legal power to decide.

For police, regulators, and agencies

• Check the enabling Act: Many include express authorisation and designation powers. Build a written scheme aligned with the statute.
• Designations: Keep designations current and accessible, and train staff on the limits of their authority.

For litigators and advisers

• Documents to request: The scheme of delegation/authorisation, the decision-maker’s job description and grade, file notes of reasons, and any ministerial directions or guidance.
• Key questions: Was the decision taken within the right body? Was the statute complied with? Was any required independence present and evidenced? Were fairness steps followed?

Summary Checklist

• Identify the exact statutory power and any wording calling for personal or independent decision.
• Decide whether Carltona applies (same department, suitable seniority) or whether express delegation is required.
• Avoid unlawful sub-delegation: a delegate may not pass the power on without statutory authority.
• Build and maintain a clear, post-based scheme of authorisation, with escalation rules.
• For local authorities, rely on and publish a section 101 LGA 1972 scheme; keep officer decision logs.
• When rules require independence or a fresh look, separate the author and reviewer and document that separation.
• Keep a full record: who decided, their authority, evidence considered, and reasons.
• Apply fair procedures: notice, opportunity to make representations, and reasons where required.
• Review high-impact or novel matters at a senior level or, where appropriate, seek ministerial sign-off.
• For outsourcing or joint working, check the statute before allowing another body to decide.

Quick Reference