The factory owners sought to argue that the requisition was invalid because the order had not in fact been signed by the minister, but by an official within the Ministry of Works and Planning.
Public business could not be carried on if that were not the case.This statement of the way government operates has become more true in recent decades, as increased state interventionism and juridification have produced a rapid growth in the use of delegated legislation.
The whole system of departmental organisation and administration is based on the view that ministers, being responsible to Parliament, will see that important duties are committed to experienced officials.
If they do not do that, Parliament is the place where complaint must be made against them.Despite suggestions to the contrary by some academic commentators,[2] it seems that there is no restriction on the applicability of the doctrine on account of the nature of the power being wielded.
Lord Kerr, delivering a unanimous judgment, held that the wording of the 1972 Order was clear enough to exclude the application of the Carltona doctrine (paras 31–32).
It is true that in Oladehinde Lord Griffiths said that a statutory duty placed on a minister may "generally" be exercised by a member of his department, but I believe that he was not there proposing that there was a legal presumption to that effect.
Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws have argued that it challenges the ordinary functioning of government and called for the decision to be overturned by Parliament.
[9] The Supreme Court of Ireland has confirmed that the Carltona doctrine applies to its fullest extent to the Irish civil service also: see Devanney v Shields [1998] 2 I.R.