2. Identify at least 1 current case in your respective jurisdiction that either confirms or rejects the Wednesbury reasonableness principle. You are to briefly identify the facts of the case and then identify how the principle was applied to the facts of the case. USE THE THIS CASE AND ITS FACTS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE: Attorney-General v International Woods Ltd (1965) 11 FLR 104. A company in Fiji imported a forklift. The Comptroller of Customs assessed the forklift for customs duty at 50 per cent of its value because it was in category 107, "vehicles and parts not otherwise enumerated", in the Schedule to the Customs Duties Ordinance. The company argued that the forklift was "cargo handling equipment" under item 111B in the Schedule; therefore the forklift was subject to customs duty of only 25 per cent, and the Comptroller's decision of 50 per cent was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal held that a court could only hold that a decision of a public official was unreasonable if "no reasonable authority could ever have come to it", as Lord Greene MR stated in the Wednesbury case (below). Using that test, Court of Appeal held that the Comptroller's decision was not unreasonable.