Dundee General Hospitals Board of Management v Walker [1952]

Key Notes

• Lord Reid's Principle:

◦ Courts will intervene if a decision-making body fails to act honestly, in good faith, or considers the wrong question.

◦ In such cases, there is "no true decision," and the court is justified in stepping in.

• Relevance to Decision-Making in Trusts:

◦ The principle from Dundee General Hospitals is applicable in cases where trustees or other appointed decision-makers fail to adhere to their duties.

◦ If decision-makers act in bad faith or stray beyond the scope of their authority (e.g., considering irrelevant factors), their decisions may be deemed invalid.

• Comparison to Re Tuck (1978):

◦ The courts in Re Tuck relied on the expertise of the Chief Rabbi, assuming decisions would be made honestly and in good faith.

◦ However, if it were proven that the Chief Rabbi acted dishonestly or outside the bounds of the trust's terms, the decision would similarly be open to challenge.

This case underscores judicial oversight in situations where decision-makers fail to act within their prescribed roles or violate fundamental principles of honesty and good faith.