CLARK DOCTRINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Abstract

Concerning the connection between a Minister and his Civil Servant, as well as the legal legality of a Civil Servant's actions 
committed without prior authorization, the Carltona Doctrine is a fundamental premise in the Administrative Law of England.  
Carltona v. Commissioner of Works1 is a well-known case in which the Court developed the aforementioned theory. Here, 
no broad nor explicit transfer of authority existed, and the Minister did not designate the Secretary to execute a property 
purchase order on his behalf. Consequently, the wronged party argued that the purchase order signed by the government 
official was not legitimate. The court, however, stuck to the traditional principle of ministerial responsibility and ruled that 
the secretary, as the minister's alter ego, could sign the acquisition order, and that the minister, as the person accountable to 
Parliament, was responsible for overseeing the department's operations.While the backdrop of the Carltona doctrine's 
evolution was a land acquisition concern, the question of whether the same concept might be applied to other contexts arose 
in a number of following judgments. Beginning with its roots in administrative law, this article examines the system of 
responsibility and accountability for ministers and civil servants. The author then notes the new circumstances and the vacuum 
in the law, arguing that the gap in the law necessitates a new principle to fill it. Against this backdrop, the Carltona doctrine 
arose in the English Administrative Law canon. The components of the Doctrine of Carltona are examined. Going forward, 
the author has investigated both the situations in which the Carltona Doctrine may be applicable and those in which it would 
not.