Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Beckwith: CA 29 Jun 1995

Local Authority may cease to provide any care of a particular class if alternative voluntary arrangements can be made available.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Sep-1995, Times 29-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Community Care Act 1990 1, National Assistance Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Beckwith QBD 21-Apr-1995
A Local Authority must maintain some facilities to provide each type of social care it was required to supply. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Wandsworth London Borough Council Ex Parte Beckwith HL 15-Dec-1995
The applicants had contended that Wandsworth was under a duty to maintain some accommodation for the elderly in premises under its own management.
Held: The applicants claim failed. Local Authorities may provide all care for elderly by outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.88247

H v Essex County Council: CA 13 Oct 2009

The grandparents of the appellant, H, applied in April 2007 to Essex County Council for a Residence Order allowance in order to assist with the costs of the care and accommodation which they provided for H, H being a young child.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1504, [2010] 1 FLR 1781, [2010] Fam Law 456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.396637

Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster: CA 22 Jul 1970

The appellant developers had obtained detailed planning approval for fourteen houses, but after adjustments for a building line, moving several properties distances of several feet toward other properties, further plans were submitted without identifying the changes. The changes were discussed, and an approval noted by the developer’s architect. The development proceeded. A neighbour objected, and the officer recommended an application for approval of the amendment. The planning committee refused approval.
Held: The developer succeeded.
Lord Denning MR said that the case ‘should be decided on the practice proved in evidence. It was within the ostensible authority of Mr. Carpenter to tell Mr. Rottenberg that the variation was not material. Seeing that the developers acted on it by building the house, I do not think the Council can throw over what has been done by their officer, Mr Carpenter.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ

Citations:

[1970] EWCA Civ 3, [1971] 1 QB 222, (1970) 21 P and CR 778, 68 LGR 757, [1970] 3 WLR 732, [1970] 3 All ER 496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSouthend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd QBD 1961
The Corporation had, by its engineer, said that its permission for the use of land as a builder’s yard was not in fact and law required. It was mistaken in this view.
Held: What the engineer had said could not create an estoppel preventing the . .
CitedRoyal British Bank v Turquand CEC 1856
The plaintiff sought payment from the defendants, a joint stock Company, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the Company whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2,000. The company said . .
CitedWells v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1967
It had been the practice of planning authorities, acting through their officers, to tell applicants whether or not planning permission was necessary. A letter was written by the Council Engineer telling the applicants that no permission was . .

Cited by:

CitedWestern Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.262773

Regina v Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, ex parte Matson: CA 18 Aug 1995

The court considered the need to give reasons for the election of Aldermen.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Waite LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ

Citations:

(1996) 8 Admin LR 49, [1997] 1 WLR 765, [1996] COD 161, 94 LGR 443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray QBD 15-Dec-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his court-martial and of the confirming officers. He said the court should have heard that he committed the offence whist intixicated after taking an anti-malarial drug. The court dd not explain why it had . .
CitedHasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.249851

Hillingdon, Regina (on the Application of) v the Secretary of State for Education and Skills: Admn 15 Mar 2007

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 514 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (Behre and Others) v Hillingdon London Borough Council Admn 29-Aug-2003
Each claimant arrived as an unaccompanied child to claim asylum, and destitute. Assistance was provided under the 1989 Act until they were 18. They claimed a duty under the 200 Act to continue to assist them.
Held: Under the 2000 Act a duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.250044

Weeks v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill: CA 30 Apr 1999

Where local councillors acted with a proper local government purpose, and in accordance with officers’ advice, ulterior motives of electoral advantage did not make the decisions improper.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1317

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoWeeks v Magill and Porter v Magill CA 5-Nov-1998
. .
See AlsoWeekes v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill CA 30-Apr-1999
. .

Cited by:

Appeal FromPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
See AlsoWeeks v Magill and Porter v Magill CA 5-Nov-1998
. .
See AlsoWeekes v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill CA 30-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.146232

Weekes v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill: CA 30 Apr 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1316

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoWeeks v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill CA 30-Apr-1999
Where local councillors acted with a proper local government purpose, and in accordance with officers’ advice, ulterior motives of electoral advantage did not make the decisions improper. . .
See AlsoDame Porter v Magill and Weekes v Magill CA 19-May-1999
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoWeeks v Magill and Dame Porter v Magill CA 30-Apr-1999
Where local councillors acted with a proper local government purpose, and in accordance with officers’ advice, ulterior motives of electoral advantage did not make the decisions improper. . .
See AlsoDame Porter v Magill and Weekes v Magill CA 19-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.146231

Mortell, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Community and Local Government and Others: CA 29 Oct 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1274

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromMortell v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 12-Dec-2008
The claimant sought to quash a Compulsory purchase order for certain properties in Oldham. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.381651

Turner and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Southampton City Council: CA 27 Nov 2009

Applications were made to challenge closure of care homes by local authorities, based on arguments that the human rights of the residents would be infringed by a requirement to move.

Judges:

Sedley, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.381582

Hambleton District Council v Bird: CA 1995

The local authority sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Gypsies from use of land they owned, for residential caravans. The Gypsies had used the site, in breach of planning control, for a number of years. The judge had refused an injunction because of the personal circumstances of the respondents.
Held: The court considered the use of injunctions to support planning control. The power of the court in planning cases is supervisory, and its discretion as to the methods arises only on committal.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[1995] 3 PLR 8

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMole Valley District Council v Smith 1992
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
CitedWaverley Borough Council v Hilden 1988
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.182492

Scott and Others v Magistrates of Glasgow: HL 27 Jul 1899

The Glasgow Magistrates, as the local authority under the Diseases of Animals Acts 1894 and 1896, established at Glasgow a wharf and public market for the reception and sale of foreign cattle. They are empowered by the terms of section 42 of the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847 (incorporated with the Act of 1894) to make bye-laws ‘for regulating the use of the market-place and fair, and the buildings, stalls, pens, and standings therein, and for preventing nuisances or obstructions therein, or in the immediate approaches thereto.’ They are also empowered, from time to time as they think fit, to repeal or alter any such byelaws, ‘provided always that such bye-laws shall not be repugnant to the laws of that part of the United Kingdom where the same are to have effect, or to the provisions of this or the special Act.’
Under these powers the Magistrates issued a bye-law providing that ‘the sale rings shall be used only for public sales of cattle by auction on conditions of sale which shall be equally applicable to all bidders and buyers. The sale rings shall not be used for private sales, or for sales to any limited number of persons, or for sales in which any class of the public are excluded from bidding and buying.’
Objection was taken to this bye-law by certain traders, who desired to limit their auction sales to a certain class of customers, and who maintained that the bye-law was ultra vires, and directed against a particular line of trade policy.
Held ( aff. judgment of the First Division- diss. Lord Shand) that the bye-law was valid.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Shand, and Lord Davey

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 965, 36 SLR 965

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Local Government

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.631839

Ryan v London Borough of Islington: CA 19 Jun 2009

The appellant challenged a decision that the exercise of her right to buy had been withdrawn. She had insisted that the authority complete repairs before she bought the property.
Held: A tenant who delayed exercise of the right-to-buy seeking to have the property repaired might lose that right. ‘Relevant outstanding matters’ referred to matters within the conveyancing process.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Aikens

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 578, Times 29-Jul-2009, [2009] 2 P and CR DG19, [2010] PTSR CS3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 140

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.347114

First Real Estates (UK) Ltd v Birmingham City Council: Admn 1 May 2009

One of the issues presented by the present case is that of determining whether Birmingham City Council, ‘the Council’, was exercising a public function when deciding to terminate what it described as its arrangements with First Real Estates (UK) Limited, ‘FRE’, for the provision of temporary accommodation for those whom the Council was obliged to house in accordance with Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Judges:

Plender J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 817 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDavy v Spelthorne Borough Council HL 13-Oct-1983
Although section 243(1)(a) provides that the ‘validity’ of an enforcement notice is not to be questioned except as therein provided, the word ‘validity’ is evidently not intended to be understood in its strict sense. It is used to mean merely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.346236

Shears Court (West Mersea) Management Company Ltd v Essex County Council: ChD 1986

Residents claimed a right to use a way over the plaintiff’s land as access to a beach. The County Council after representation by the residents instituted proceedings under the 1981 Act having concluded that there was a public right of way. Meanwhile the plaintiff landowner issued a writ seeking a declaration that no public footpath existed over its land. The County Council sought to have the writ struck out.
Held:- ‘There is nothing in these cases which supports the contention that once the procedure of the Act of 1981 is under way but not yet completed there is no right to bring a question concerning the alleged right of way before the court. That such an action may be stayed is one thing, but to say that it should be struck out is entirely without foundation.’ He therefore declined to strike it out but ordered the proceedings under it to be stayed pending resolution of the local authority’s enquiries and determinations under the 1981 Act.

Judges:

Prosser QC

Citations:

[1986] 85 LGR 479

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTodd, Bradley v The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Jun-2004
Application was made to quash an order modifying the Council’s definitive map of public rights of way.
Held: Before the Secretary of State could confirm a Council’s modification of a right of way shown on the definitive map, where that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.199322

Stretch v West Dorset District Council (2): CA 13 May 1999

A local authority resisting an appeal by a legally aided plaintiff could be awarded costs. The court should be careful not to depart from the wording of the Act, and an order did not depend upon any finding of wrongful behaviour by a party. The plaintiff had sought to exercise an option in a lease granted to him, but which option was ultra vires.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1409

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1974 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Local Government

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.146324

Regina v London Underground Ltd and Another, ex parte Transport for London: QBD 30 Jul 2001

The Act gave the power to the government to override the policy of the Mayor of London and the Transport for London authority, and to enter into private partnerships for the management of the underground system by the private sector. Although the Mayor had an obligation to publish, review and implement a strategy for the management of the underground, and TFL had an obligation to run the Underground to a safe and adequate standard, it was for the Secretary of State, and not the Mayor to approve principles behind the contracts, and to direct that they be entered into.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2001

Statutes:

Greater London Authority Act 1999 210

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toLondon Regional Transport, London Underground Limited v Mayor of London Transport for London CA 24-Aug-2001
The claimants sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from publishing a report in breach of a contractual duty of confidence. This was granted but then discharged on the defendant undertaking only to publish a redacted version. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLondon Regional Transport, London Underground Limited v Mayor of London Transport for London CA 24-Aug-2001
The claimants sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from publishing a report in breach of a contractual duty of confidence. This was granted but then discharged on the defendant undertaking only to publish a redacted version. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Local Government

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.136157

Sheffield City Council v Ali: Admn 7 Jul 2005

The taxi driver had been acquitted for making a false statement to support his application. The magistrates had found that the form he had been requested to use had not been approved properly by the authority. It was accepted that the information, as to previous convictions, could properly have been asked of him.
Held: The information requested was plainly within the scope of an officer to whom this task had been delegated, and the authority’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1613 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 57(3), Local Government Act 1972 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (on the Application of the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices Admn 30-May-2002
The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not . .
CitedCarltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Local Government

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.229310

Harris v Northamptonshire County Council: 1897

At common law a highway authority is under a duty to remove obstructions from a highway.

Citations:

(1897) 61 JP 599

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAli v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.426030

Enfield London Borough Council v McKeon: CA 1986

In order to enforce the right to buy, a person must normally be a secure tenant throughout the period from service of the original notice, exercising the right to buy, until completion is effected. Each part of the process is an ‘exercise’ of the right to buy.
Slade LJ said that the 1980 Act: ‘treats a tenant as purporting to exercise his right to buy at any time and from time to time when he takes steps towards implementation of that right, up to and including completion of the purchase. If, therefore, any of the circumstances set out in part 2 of schedule 1 . . subsist at any time between the time when he serves his section 5 notice and completion, his right to buy ceases to be exercisable.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1007

Statutes:

Housing Act 1980 2(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.278701

Rex v Company of Fishermen of Faversham: 1799

Lord Kenyon CJ discussed the validity of a byelaw: ‘With regard to the form of the byelaw indeed, though a byelaw may be good in part and bad in part, yet it can be so only where the two parts are entire and distinct from each other.’

Judges:

Lord Kenyon CJ

Citations:

(1799) 8 Term 352

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.259755

H and others v London Borough of Wandsworth and others: Admn 23 Apr 2007

In three linked cases, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children had had assistance with housing from the local social services authorities. They claimed entitlement to support as former relevant children under section 20. The local authorities argued that they had provided accommodation under section 17 rather than section 20 of the 1989 Act.
Held: Once the section 20 duty arose, the local authority could not ‘finesse it away’ by claiming to exercise a different power.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 441, [2007] 2 FLR 822

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

HelpfulS, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Sutton CA 26-Jul-2007
The local authority owed the section 20(1) duty towards a 17 year old girl who was about to be released from a Secure Training Centre. It argued however that the duty no longer applied because she had agreed to go to a hostel for homeless women . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham HL 27-Feb-2008
M, a girl aged 16 had become estranged from her mother, and sought housing assistance. She was not referred to the authority’s children’s services, and was not housed. The House examined the duties of local authorities under the section towards . .
CitedG, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark HL 20-May-2009
The House was asked whether when a child of 16 or 17 who was ejected from home and presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, it is open to that authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.253291

Highland Council (Formerly Ross and Cromarty District Council) v Patience and Others (Scotland): HL 14 Nov 1996

Local Authority tenants sought to exercise their statutory right to purchase their council house. The third defendant had registered against the title a right of pre-emption protecting a feu charter registered in the Registry of Sasines.
Held: A Local Authority could sell a house to a secure tenant despite a feu charter on the title giving a right of pre-emption. The right to buy was akin to a compulsory purchase. The procedure involved clearly suggested that the tenant’s right to buy must be unimpeded.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mustill, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-1997, [1996] UKHL 7

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedKirkness v John Hudson and Co Ltd HL 1955
Viscount Simonds said: ‘the beliefs or assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law’. While subsequent legislation could resolve ambiguity in earlier legislation, it could only do so where the subject of the subsequent . .
CitedHenderson v City of Glasgow District Council 1994
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Land, Registered Land

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.135036

Parker v Camden Borough Council: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 1 Ch 162

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKilby v Basildon District Council Admn 26-Jul-2006
Tenants complained that the authority landlord had purported to vary a clause in his secure tenancy agreement which gave certain management rights to tenants.
Held: The powers to let on secure tenancies were governed by statute. The clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.244729

HE Green and Sons v Minister of Health (No 2): 1947

The plaintiff challenged a compulsory purchase order, saying that the purpose of the order went beyond the statutory purpose.
Held: The provision of ‘houses’ must be taken to include the provision of ancillary facilities. Denning J said that he was satisfied that the local authority did not mean to restrict itself in its letting of the houses, it was to build on the land it was attempting to acquire, to those who were of any particular class. That did not however, invalidate the exercise of the powers: ‘The next question is whether the order is invalid because, in addition to houses being put up on this land, the co-operation proposed to put up nurseries, a health centre, a youth centre, shops, a public house, and so forth. It is said, and truly said, that in providing or contemplating the provision of those amenities, the co-operation intend that they should be available, not only to the persons living in the houses that are going to be put up in this estate, but also for persons from the neighbouring areas. It is said that makes the proposal invalid. This contention depends on the true interpretation of s 80. That section, contemplates that, providing the Minister consents, the land may be used, not only for houses, but also for shops, recreation grounds, and other buildings, which ‘will serve a beneficial purpose in connecxion with the requirements of the persons for whom the housing accommodation is provided.’ It is said if this proposed health centre, shops, etc, are in connexion with the requirements of other persons, in addition to those of this estate, that makes it outside the powers of s 80. I do not think that is a correct interpretation. The fact that it will also serve a beneficial purpose for other persons does not make it any the less a beneficial purpose for the persons in this housing estate. I see no reason for introducing the limitation which is suggested, and I do not think the proposed development is invalid.’

Judges:

Denning J

Citations:

[1948] 1 KB 34, [1947] 2 All ER 469

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCapital Investments Ltd v Wednesfield Urban District Council ChD 12-Feb-1964
The council set out to acquire two plots of land for development for housing. After the process had begun, it was decided that some of the land should be uised for educational purposes. A Land Charge had been served but the matter not completed. A . .
CitedBarkas, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough Council Admn 20-Dec-2011
The claimants sought to have registered as a town or village green land in Whitby which had been provided as a playing field by the Local Authority since 1934. The inspector had found that the use had not been ‘as of right’ as required by the 2006 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.223477

Ali Raja and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: Admn 5 Jun 2020

Case about the night-time care needs of two adult brothers with severe physical and learning disabilities. It is about whether the sole justifiable response for the local authority to adopt was to provide additional care and support pending a full needs reassessment.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Health

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651200

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 10 Oct 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2279 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.261381

L, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire County Council: Admn 26 Sep 2007

A social worker arranged for L, a seriously troubled young person who had been evicted from her mother’s home, to live for a few days in an hotel.
Held: As she had previously been looked after by the local authority for some time, this would be sufficient for her to become a relevant child under section 20. The classification or definition of what was being done by the council at the time, particularly where there was no assessment and the relevant matters were not in mind, could not possibly be determinative as to what had occurred. The child was a child in need, there had been a continuous duty to accommodate her under section 20, and she was therefore a former relevant child.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham HL 27-Feb-2008
M, a girl aged 16 had become estranged from her mother, and sought housing assistance. She was not referred to the authority’s children’s services, and was not housed. The House examined the duties of local authorities under the section towards . .
CitedG, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark HL 20-May-2009
The House was asked whether when a child of 16 or 17 who was ejected from home and presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, it is open to that authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.260202

Richardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others: Admn 15 Apr 2003

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 764 (Admin), [2004] 1 P and CR 23, [2003] 18 EGCS 113

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.185035

Martin-Sklan, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barnet: Admn 13 Aug 2010

Judicial review application for permission concerns the actions of the London Borough of Barnet in creating a children’s playground in Brookside Open Space without the planning permission it needed and without the authority of the relevant committee or officers of the Council.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2482 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.425329

Regina v Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Abernethy: Admn 14 Jan 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Ian Abernethy Admn 29-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Ian Abernethy Admn 29-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoAbernethy, Regina (on the Application Of) v Local Government Ombudsman CA 21-Mar-2002
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Ian Abernethy Admn 29-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Ian Abernethy Admn 29-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoAbernethy, Regina (on the Application Of) v Local Government Ombudsman CA 21-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoAbernethy, Regina (on the Application Of) v Local Government Ombudsman CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.139293

Dover District Council v CPRE Kent: SC 6 Dec 2017

‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a duty to be found in statutory sources, European or domestic, or in the common law? And what are the legal consequences of a breach of the duty?’
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Oakley was rightly decided, and consistent with the general law as established by the House of Lords in Doody. Although planning law is a creature of statute, the proper interpretation of the statute is underpinned by general principles, properly referred to as derived from the common law. Doody itself involved such an application of the common law principle of ‘fairness’ in a statutory context, in which the giving of reasons was seen as essential to allow effective supervision by the courts. Fairness provided the link between the common law duty to give reasons for an administrative decision, and the right of the individual affected to bring proceedings to challenge the legality of that decision.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 79, [2018] 2 All ER 121, [2017] WLR(D) 812, [2018] Env LR 17, [2018] JPL 653, [2018] 1 WLR 108, [2018] LLR 305, UKSC 2016/0188

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Oct 16 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 16 pm Video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First InstanceCampaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
CitedClarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .
CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
CitedWall, Regina (on the Application of) v Brighton and Hove City Council Admn 2-Nov-2004
Application for judicial review, seeking an order quashing a grant of planning permission dated by the defendant for the demolition of an existing house and its replacement by eight self-contained apartments. The notice granting planning permission . .
CitedSuffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
CitedMartin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 27-Nov-2015
There is an enforceable duty, said to arise ‘ . . either from the principles of procedural fairness . . or from the legitimate expectation generated by the Secretary of State’s long-established practice . . ‘ on decision makers to give a fully . .
CitedRe Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedSiraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
CitedHawksworth Securities Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco Sarl and Others Admn 26-Jul-2016
Challenge to decision to allow redevelopment of part of shopping centre. Lang J made a general point about what she saw as the difference between a planning inspector conducting an ‘adversarial procedure, akin to court or tribunal proceedings’, . .
CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
CitedCherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Mole Valley District Council and Another CA 7-May-2014
. .
CitedHopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 30-Jan-2015
. .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
CitedRegina v Universities Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery QBD 30-Jul-1993
When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical ‘where the decision appears aberrant’. ‘the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right . .
CitedRegina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
CitedRegina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre 2000
The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
CitedOakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council and Another CA 15-Feb-2017
Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a . .
CitedCampaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council CA 14-Sep-2016
Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of . .
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
CitedSecretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1976
An authority investigating an application for registration of rights of common over land has an implied duty to ‘take reasonable steps to acquaint (itself) with the relevant information.’ A mere factual mistake has become a ground of judicial . .
CitedKennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599755

Kilby, Regina (on the Application of) v Basildon District Council: CA 22 May 2007

The court was asked whether a local authority can lawfully bind itself by contract to subject the exercise of its statutory power to vary its tenancy agreements by notice to the approval of tenants’ representatives.
Held: The local authority could not fetter its right in that way. The authority had a statutory power of management under section 21 of the Housing Act 1985 which was exercisable ‘for the single purpose of regulating secure periodic tenancies’ and that a contractual clause preventing it exercising its right of unilateral variation was ‘simply incompatible with the Council’s statutory right and power to vary their tenancies unilaterally.’
Rix LJ said: ‘The need for such a unilateral method of varying tenancies can be readily acknowledged. A local authority may have thousands of housing units. Circumstances, or changes of policy, may require it to be able to vary the terms of its tenancy. If such variation had to be sought severally and bilaterally, the local authority’s housing stock could become impossible to manage, in breach of its duty under section 21.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Rix LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 479

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 21 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPeabody Trust v Reeve ChD 2-Jun-2008
The court was asked to sanction the unilateral alteration by the landlord of the terms of some ten thouand tenancies. The agreements contained a clause which the landlord said allowed for variations under the Housing Act 1985. The landlord was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.252460

Rhyl Urban District Council v Rhyl Amusements Ltd: 1959

The tenant said that the landlord local authority had accepted his surrender of his lease by granting a new one, but the new lease was void as ultra vires.
Held: Not even the surrender of their old lease on the promise to grant the new one assisted them. The old lease would not be deemed surrendered unless the new lease was granted by deed. The defendants made a new lease, which was void: ‘It would be absurd if the same result were to be achieved as had been intended by the Agreement and which led to that Agreement being ultra vires, merely because the court has declared the Agreement void and put a notional contract of employment in its place. It would be achieving by a different means the same improper purpose, and that is something which the law cannot contemplate.’

Citations:

[1959] 1 WLR 465, [1959] 1 All ER 257

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMalone, Malone, Goldstein v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Ltd, Stowell, Visortuning Ltd ChD 19-Dec-2003
Houseowners around a square had variously enfranchised their properties, but were now in dispute as to the management of the communal garden.
Held: Though the company was unable to recover the legal costs in the absence of an express power, . .
CitedLondon Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD 15-Dec-2006
The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.191986

Slot v East Hants District Council: CA 17 Nov 1998

The claimants appealed the district judge’s decision to rescind the reference to arbitration.
Held: A point of law had arisen, and the decision made was one the judge could make of his own volition, and therefore no notice had been required.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1778

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Hounslow London Borough Council, ex parte Williamson Admn 1996
An expression of a planning officer’s view was not a decision amenable to judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145257

RK and AK v The United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Oct 2005

The applicants’ young child had been suspected of being the victim of physical abuse. After court proceedings the child was removed. In later proceedings and after being placed with an aunt, she was diagnosed as having brittle bone disease. In the meantime, the mother had suffered ostracism in her community. The court had found her claim in negligence against the hospital doctor ill founded on the basis that the doctor who had failed to diagnose the condition owed the mother no duty of care.
Held: It was clear that the removal of the child was an interference with the claimants’ right to family life. It was however in accordance with domestic law, and that that law had a legitimate aim. The issue was as to its necessity. ‘mistaken judgments or assessments by professionals do not per se render child-care measures incompatible with the requirements of Article 8. The authorities, medical and social, have duties to protect children and cannot be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children vis-a-vis members of their families are proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided.’ The provisions were necessary, and no breach was found.

Judges:

L Garlicki, President,and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, D. Thor Bjorgvinsson, P. Hirvela and L. Bianku Section Registrar L

Citations:

38000/05, [2008] ECHR 950, [2008] ECHR 1889, [2002] ECHR 717, [2010] ECHR 577

Links:

Bailii, Times, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedMAK and RK v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Mar-2010
mak_ukECHR10
When RK, a nine year old girl was taken to hospital, with bruises, the paediatrician wrongly suspecting sexual abuse, took blood samples and intimate photographs in the absence of the parents and without their consent.
Held: The doctor had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Local Government, Children

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.276648

In re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption): CA 1 May 2008

The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to revoke the placement order. Aware that they were doing so on the eve of the hearing of the father’s application for leave to apply to revoke the placement order, East Sussex CC exercised their power to place the child for adoption and thereby defeated his application by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act of 2002.
Held: His appeal failed. However, the county court would have had jurisdiction to restrain the placement by injunction.
Wilson J said: ‘I consider that jurisdiction is conferred upon the county court by s 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 (and upon the High Court by s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981) to enjoin a local authority from placing a child for adoption even if authorised to do so by a subsisting placement order; that such an injunction can be sought, no doubt on a very temporary basis, even without notice to the local authority; and that it can be sought at any time after issue of the application for leave or even prior to its issue provided that an undertaking is given to issue it immediately.’
and ‘if this kind of disgraceful conduct is repeated in another case, the likelihood is that the agency’s decision to place the child would be the subject of an application for judicial review. Speaking for myself, I can see no reason why the Administrative Court should not declare unlawful a decision such as that taken by the agency in the instant case. If it did so, it would quash the decision to place the child for adoption. It could then give directions for the hearing of the father’s application under s 24(2) in the county court, and restrain the agency, by injunction, from placing the child for adoption pending the determination of that application.’
Thorpe LJ (dissenting) would allow the appeal said that the authority had been determined to achieve its aims ‘by means more foul than fair.’ The 2002 Act should be read so as to comply with the Human Rights of the father, which would require his application for leave to be joined in the proceedings to serve.
Wall LJ said that he words of the section were clear and precise and it was not possible to read them in such a way as to allow the suspension of proceedings while the father applied for leave to be joined. Nevertheless: ‘speaking for myself, the behaviour of the agency in the instant case is about the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years. ‘

Judges:

Thorpe, Wall, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 439, Times 09-May-2008, [2008] 2 FLR 550, [2008] Fam Law 715, [2008] 2 FCR 93

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 24(5), Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAshingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
CitedRegina v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte T CA 1990
The court upheld the decision of Swinton Thomas J to grant certiorari to quash the decision of a local authority to move a child to prospective adopters without informing the child’s parents and in an attempt to prevent them making an application to . .
CitedIn Re B (Minors) (Contact) CA 3-Feb-1993
The Judge had a discretion to look again at the natural mother’s case before making an adoption order. In order to minimise delay in any case, and to facilitate efficient decision-making, the court could, exercising its wide judicial discretion, . .
CitedNorfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 17-Nov-2006
There had been care proceedings following allegations of physical child abuse. There had been a residential assessment. The professionals accepted the parents’ commitment to their son, but also found that they were unreliable. It was recommended . .
CitedRe L and H (Residential Assessment); CT and Another v Bristol City Council and others CA 14-Mar-2007
Application for leave to appeal against refusal to order residential assessment under section 38(6). ECHR Articles 6 and 8, and the underlying philosophy of the 1989 Act, required that a case be fully investigated and that all the relevant evidence . .
CitedSeal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
CitedRe F and H (Children) CA 24-Aug-2007
The father sought leave to appeal a care order and an order releasing his child for adoption.
Held: The court applied Re W as to the extent of the duty of the appellate court in such matters. The appeal would stand no reasonable prospect of . .
CitedWarwickshire County Council v M and others CA 1-Nov-2007
The judge had granted the mother leave to apply for revocation of placement orders. The authority appealed. The mother argued that once a change of circumstances was shown, the court was obliged to give leave to apply.
Held: The judge was not . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

Cited by:

CitedCoventry City Council v PGO and Others CA 22-Jun-2011
The children had been placed with short term fosterers. On adopters being found, the fosterers themselves applied to adopt the children. The court was asked whether a county court judge had power to injunct the authority not to remove the children . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.267387

Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council: CA 19 Dec 2003

The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the meeting at which the decision was made contrary to the model code of conduct.
Held: On the facts the council had taken the decision in the light of proper consideration of the regulations as to the need for an assessment. The requirement to exclude a member with an interest applied to all members and not just those who had a part in the matter before the committee. It was not open to a member to declare his interest and continue to take part in the meeting. Leave to refer a question to the European Court was refused.
Notwithstanding a clear failure to provide a statement of reasons as required by regulation 21 of the EIA regulations it was held that the appropriate remedy was, not to quash the decision itself, but to make a mandatory order for the required statement to be provided. In the leading judgment, Simon Brown LJ adopted the reasoning at first instance: ‘the first and most important point in the present case is that regulation 21(1) looks to the position after the grant of planning permission. It is concerned with making information available to the public as to what has been decided and why it has been decided, rather than laying down requirements for the decision-making process itself. It implements the obligation in article 9(1) of the directive to make information available to the public ‘when a decision to grant . . development consent has been taken’ (emphasis added). That is to be contrasted with article 2(1) of the Directive, which lays down requirements as to what must be done before the grant of planning permission (which may be granted only after a prior assessment of significant environmental effects).
The fact that the requirement focuses on the availability of information for public inspection after the decision has been made, rather than on the decision-making process, leads me to the view that a breach of regulation 21(1) ought not to lead necessarily to the quashing of the decision itself. A breach should be capable in principle of being remedied, and the legislative purpose achieved, by a mandatory order requiring the authority to make available a statement at the place, and containing the information, specified in the regulation.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1860, [2003] EWCA Civ 1921, Times 19-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1920

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRichardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others Admn 15-Apr-2003
. .
CitedRegina v Yeovil Borough Council, ex parte Trustees of Elim Pentecostal Church, Yeovil QBD 1971
The Council’s Planning Committee had resolved that the town clerk should be authorised to approve the application when evidence of an agreement about car parking facilities had been received.
Held: There is no effective planning permission . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 29-Jun-2001
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
CitedBrayhead (Ascot) Ltd v Berkshire County Council CA 1964
Planning permission had been granted subject to conditions, but no reasons had been given for the imposition of those conditions. The Order required the local planning authority to state its reasons in writing if it decided to grant planning . .
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
CitedFlannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Carlton-Conway) v London Borough of Harrow Admn 7-Nov-2001
The applicant objected to an application for planning permission by a neighbour. The authority authorised officers to exercise delegated powers to grant permission where no objection had been received. Even then the officer could exercise the power . .
CitedRegina (Goodman and Another) v Lewisham London Borough Council CA 14-Feb-2003
Claimants challenged the grant of planning consent for the construction of a storage and distribution facility without first undertaking an environmental impact assessment.
Held: The local authority had concluded that the project could not be . .
CitedRegina v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre 2000
The planning committee had accepted the officer’s recommendation: ‘ . . one is concerned with the members’ reasons not the planning officer’s, but where a planning officer makes a recommendation which is followed by the members, the reasonable . .
CitedRegina v Flintshire County Council, Ex Parte Armstrong-Braun CA 20-Feb-2001
A local council introduced a standing order to the effect that an item could not be placed on an agenda without being seconded. In doing so it had failed entirely to consider the fundamental effect this would have on democracy. Independent members . .
CitedJones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRichardson and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council and others Admn 15-Apr-2003
. .
CitedMurphy v Ethical Standards Officer of Standards Board for England Admn 28-Oct-2004
The claimant, a local authority councillor, challenged a finding that he had contravened the Code of Conduct, by failing to withdraw from a meeting in which he had a personal interest, namely a critical report by the Local Government Ombudsman.
CitedScrivens v Ethical Standards Officer Admn 11-Apr-2005
The councillor appealed an adjudication that he had failed adequately to declare an interest at a meeting of the council. The officer thought the duty to withdraw was entirely objective, the applicant that it was a matter for his honest judgment. At . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188900

Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others: HL 22 May 2003

The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an authority sought assistance in enforcement by requesting an injunction, the role of the court was not merely supervisory, but original, and it had a duty to assess each case on its merits. The remedy of an injunction, carrying the threat of imprisonment is personal to the proposed injunctee. The court was not bound to follow the views of the local authority in enforcing planning control, and the proposed injunction must be both just and proportionate. The balance between Roma and other parts of society will always be difficult to find.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘When granting an injunction the court does not contemplate that it will be disobeyed . . Apprehension that a party may disobey an order should not deter the court from making an order otherwise appropriate: there is not one law for the law-abiding and another for the lawless and truculent.’
Lord Brown gave a broad summary of the authorities: ‘The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 26, Times 23-May-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 WLR 1547, [2003] 2 AC 558

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
CitedAttorney-General v Bastow 1957
The case involved an attempt by a local authority to enforce planning control by a relator action requiring the removal of caravans on land in breach of planning control. The use of the service of stop notices, are supported by the power of the . .
CitedManchester Corporation v Connolly CA 1970
The local authority sought to use an injunction to assist in enforcing planning controls. The court had no power to make an interlocutory order for possession. Lord Diplock: ‘The writ of possession was originally a common law writ (although it is . .
CitedMole Valley District Council v Smith 1992
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
CitedWaverley Borough Council v Hilden 1988
The local authority sought to use its powers under the Act to enforce planning control over gypsies. . .
CitedRegina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others QBD 3-Oct-1995
A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedBasildon District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 2-Feb-2001
The court considered the relevance of personal circumstances to the grant of injunctions in enforcement of planning conditions.
Held: In any considerations of common humanity, the needs of these particular gypsy families were a material . .
CitedIn re Liddell’s Settlement Trusts CA 1936
The Court upheld an injunction issued against Mrs Liddell who was not a party to the proceedings and who had taken her children to the United States. When granting an injunction, the court should operate on the basis that it will be obeyed, and not . .
CitedCastanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .
CitedBuckley v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-1996
The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the . .
CitedWilliam Browning, Maureen Browning v Messrs Brachers (A Firm) QBD 15-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for professional negligence, in having failed to pursue a claim for professional negligence against a previous firm of solicitors who had acted for the claimant. . .
CitedAttorney General v Chaudry CA 1971
The court has jurisdiction to grant a civil law remedy by way of injunction in order to enforce the public law, except in cases where statute had expressly or by necessary implication removed the jurisdiction. Whenever Parliament has enacted a law . .
CitedSmart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson CA 25-Jan-2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights . .
Appeal fromPorter, Searle and Others, Berry and Harty v South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt CA 12-Oct-2001
Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants . .
ApprovedClarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
On a challenge as to the adequacy of the reasons given for a planning decision: ‘I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
CitedDavis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
AppliedCoates and others v South Bucks District Council ChD 27-Jan-2004
. .
CitedCoates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
CitedSecretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
CitedBroxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.182482

South Buckinghamshire District Council v Flanagan and Another: QBD 16 Jul 2001

The council issued enforcement notices in respect of an unauthorised use of land. An amenity notice was also issued and an appeal was entered. At an interlocutory hearing, the prosecutions were agreed to be dropped, and one of the land users alleged that the council’s solicitor agent agreed also to with draw the enforcement notices. When the council sought to revive the enforcement by way of injunction, the defendant said that they were bound by the agreement of their officer who had the ostensible authority of the council.
Held: Whilst the solicitor would have the general authority of the council, he would need explicit authority to bind the council to withdrawing the enforcement notices which were charges on the land, and would continue to affect the land even after a transfer. He did not have such an explicit authority, and the council could proceed with the enforcement.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Planning, Local Government, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.159505

Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others: CA 19 Aug 1997

A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused.

Citations:

Times 19-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2262, [1998] JPL 49, (1998) 76 P and CR 207, [1997] 3 PLR 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1970 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another, Ex Parte Chaplin and Others QBD 23-Jul-1996
There was no common law duty to give reasons for a grant of permission after a refusal. . .

Cited by:

CitedHasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.86074

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte North Tyneside Borough Council: 1990

The Secretary of State was entitled in his rate support grant each year to adopt for the population of an area the figure estimated by the Registrar General, rather than determining the figure itself. That was not regarded by the court as an unlawful delegation of part of the Secretary of State’s statutory task.

Citations:

[1990] COD 195

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAudit Commission for England and Wales v Ealing London Borough Council CA 16-May-2005
The authority complained that the respondent intended to adopt the assessment of its performance the judgment of a third party.
Held: There had been no unlawful delegation of the Audit Commissions duties. The Commission for Social Care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.225438

Marginson v Tildsley: 1903

Citations:

(1903) 67 JP 226

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council QBD 14-May-2004
The claimant sought disclosure by the respondent of their accounts, intending to use the material in a television program.
Held: As ratepayers, they were entitled to the information. The respondent was not free to refuse it because it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.198148

In Re V (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure); In Re L (Sexual Abuse; Disclosure): CA 8 Oct 1998

In each case the local authority involved in care proceedings sought to disclose to others (another authority and the football league), information which had come to light regarding sexual improprieties of the parties to the cases. It was inappropriate to allow the disclosure of the identity of a person found to have committed sexual abuse, in the context of child care proceedings, without a pressing need. Here there was no statutory duty on local authority to disclose, and no continuing investigation.
Butler-Sloss LJ: ‘Although the facts in the [AB] case are entirely different from those in the present appeals, the caution urged by the Master of the Rolls that ‘disclosure should only be made when there is a pressing need’ is of general application . . ‘

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 299, [1998] EWCA Civ 1502, [1999] 1 FLR 267

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromIn Re L (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure) FD 9-Oct-1997
A judge sitting in a children case has a discretion to order the passing of information about child sex abuse to non-parties, including in this case a different local authority in whose area the father lived. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toIn Re L (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure) FD 9-Oct-1997
A judge sitting in a children case has a discretion to order the passing of information about child sex abuse to non-parties, including in this case a different local authority in whose area the father lived. . .
CitedDr D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 19-Jul-2006
The doctor complained of the use of Alert letters where he was suspected of sexual abuse of patients, but the allegations were unsubstantiated. He complained particularly that he had been acquitted in a criminal court and then also by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144981

Regina v Norfolk County Council, ex parte M: QBD 1989

The plaintiff worked as a plumber. His work took him to a private children’s home. An allegation of sexual abuse was made against him by a 13 year old child. She had made other claims against other men which had proved to be false. He was released by the police without charge. The local authority held a case conference and placed his name on the child abuse register. He then lost his job.
Held: The local authority had acted unreasonably. The case conference is not simply a private administrative act, and it must be subject to review, and must act fairly. The decision was quashed.

Citations:

[1989] 2 All ER 359, [1989] QB 619

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 19-Mar-2006
The court considered the duties on the respondent in providing an enhanced criminal record certificate. In one case, the claimant had brought up her son who was made subject to child protection procedures for neglect. Her job involved supervising . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193594

Monks v East Northamptonshire District Council: QBD 8 Mar 2002

The appellant claimed that a prosecution under the 1990 Act could not be made by the Local Authority in its own name, but should rather have been in the name of a nominated official.
Held: The 1972 Act gave the authority the power. It had not been intended to make a distinction between a local authority’s powers in this respect as between civil and criminal proceedings.

Judges:

Justice Silber

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990, Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167884

Nicol v Magistrates of Aberdeen: 1870

A very strong case is required before a court could intefere with the exercise of a statutory discretion given to a local authority in a matter affecting the community.

Judges:

Lord President Inglis

Citations:

(1870) 9 M 306

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedStewart v Perth and Kinross Council HL 1-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged refusal of a licence to sell second hand cars, saying that the licensing requirements imposed were outwith the Act under which they had been made. The licensing scheme imposed additional requirements.
Held: Though a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195472

South Glamorgan County Council v L and M: 1996

Citations:

[1996] ELR 400

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOxfordshire County Council v GB and Others CA 22-Aug-2001
When an appeal was lodged against the decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, it was wrong for that Tribunal later to expand on its reasons, save in exceptional circumstances. Parental preference was not an overriding consideration, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Education

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.224965