Porter v Magill: apparent bias and public powers
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357 is a leading authority on apparent bias. The actual House of Lords captions are Magill v Porter and Magill v Weeks.
For planning practitioners, its value lies in the objective test for bias and the requirement to use public powers for their proper purposes. It is not itself a planning-permission appeal.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 13th December 2001
- Judge
- Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote
The Westminster housing-sales litigation
The case arose from Westminster’s policy of selling council homes, targeted to improve the majority party’s electoral position. The auditor certified losses attributable to wilful misconduct by councillors and officers.
After proceedings in the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal, the House of Lords restored the certificate against Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks in the sum upheld by the Divisional Court.
The proceedings also raised objections about the auditor’s impartiality, his public announcement of provisional findings and the time taken by the investigation.
The objective test for apparent bias
Paragraph 103 states the familiar test: whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.
The question is not determined simply by the complainant’s suspicions or the decision-maker’s assurance that they were impartial. The circumstances must be assessed objectively.
Proof of actual prejudice in the decision-maker’s mind is not required to establish apparent bias. Equally, an adverse decision, an unwise remark or a disappointing result does not automatically satisfy the test.
The auditor’s press conference did not establish bias
The House criticised the decision to hold a press conference as an error of judgment and an inappropriate exercise in self-promotion.
Nevertheless, the objective assessment included the provisional nature of the findings and the subsequent conduct of the investigation. The House concluded that a real possibility of bias had not been demonstrated.
That result matters: the case states a test, but is not an example of the court ultimately finding the auditor biased.
Political advantage and a proper public purpose
Lord Bingham distinguished adopting a lawful policy in the hope that voters would approve of it from exercising public powers for the purpose of securing a party’s electoral advantage.
The former is a normal feature of democratic government. The latter is not made lawful merely by dressing it in the language of an otherwise legitimate policy.
For planning committees, read this alongside Lewis, which addresses predisposition and predetermination in the planning context. The tests should be applied to the particular decision and evidence, not used to assume that political affiliation itself disqualifies a councillor.
Read the Porter v Magill judgment
Gold Members can read the original judgment below. It also addresses audit liability, causation and compensation under the historical statutory scheme; this entry concentrates on the principles most relevant to planning decisions.
Porter v Magill Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026