swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Local Government - From: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Pedgrift v Oxfordshire County Council (1991) 63 P & CR 246
1991
CA
Staughton LJ
Planning, Local Government
It is unattractive for the Council to rely on its own unlawful act in imposing a planning condition in excess of its powers.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1992] QB 770; [1991] 4 All ER 795
1991
QBD
Morland J
Defamation, Local Government
The defendant published articles suggesting links between the Council and certain businessmen. The Council sued in defamation. The defendant argued that a local authority should not be able to sue for defamation. Held: Applying South Hetton, an authority could sue.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v London Borough of Brent, ex parte Blatt (1991) 24 HLR 319
1991
QBD
Leggatt LJ, Owen J
Housing, Local Government
The applicant was the respondent's secure tenant. The respondent decided to change its tenancy agreement, by including a list of items of repair for which it would be responsible and a procedure by which it could vary the terms of the agreement. In a further clause the respondent agreed that no variation might be made to the agreement which either reduced the respondent's repair obligations or made them more difficult to enforce or which reduced the tenant's security of tenure under the agreement. The respondent later decided to remove the list of its repair obligations from the agreement, to remove the contractual security of tenure provisions and to replace them with the grounds provided by the Act and to remove the variation clause, including clause 8(b). The tenant sought judicial review. Held: Section 102 of the Act gave power to the respondent to vary the terms of a secure tenancy; clause 8(b) was itself a term of the tenancy and so could itself be varied by deletion pursuant to statutory procedure. It was a matter of construction of the statute.
Leggatt LJ: "Mr. Watkinson argues that it was open to the Council to agree not to exercise the power given by section 103. He says that that is what the council did in 1981 as a result of negotiations with the tenants' associations. He submits that the effect of including clause 8(b) in the old Agreement was to preclude the Council thereafter from varying the standard form by reducing the security of tenure of tenants under the Agreement. The respondents, therefore, cannot now reduce the quality of the security, as they have purported to do in the fashion complained of under the applicant's first argument. Attractive though the argument is, especially since that is what the average tenant might expect the position to be, it cannot, in my judgment, prevail over the language of the statute. Section 102 gives power to the Council to vary the terms of a secure tenancy by Agreement with the tenants, or alternatively, in accordance with section 103 by giving notice of variation of a periodic tenancy following compliance with the statutory arrangements for a preliminary notice. In that way the respondents can in effect vary the terms of the tenancy unilaterally. Clause 8(b) is itself a term of the tenancy, so it can be varied by deletion. It does not, after all, contain or constitute a promise that it will not itself be revoked. In truth, however, as I have earlier indicated, this represents no substantial diminution in the tenants' rights. Their basic protection is afforded by the statute, and such embellishments of that protection as were brought about by contract, would, if enforceable, only have been of value in the event that the statutory protection was itself reduced in future . . ."
Owen J: ". . . I would only add that whilst not finding that it is possible I am far from convinced that it would be impossible for a local authority to contract out the powers given by sections 102 and 103 of the Housing Act 1985. However, if such a contracting out is possible, then it would need to be both clear and explicit. I am satisfied there was no such contracting out here. Once that conclusion is accepted, then the changes intended to be made by the proposed Tenancy Agreement do not provide a sufficient Basis for the application made here. . ."
1 Citers
Regina v Manchester City Council ex parte King [1991] 89 LGR 696
1991
QBD
Roch J
Local Government
When setting licence fees for local traders, the authority had set them at a commercial rate. "the judgment of what was a reasonable fee "for the purpose of recouping in whole or in part the cots of operating the street trading scheme" was for members of the local authority. "
Roch J said: "The fees charged . . must be related to the street trading scheme operated by the district council and the costs of operating that scheme. The district council may charge such fees as they reasonably consider will cover the total cost of operating the street trading scheme or such lesser part of the cost of operating the street trading scheme as they consider reasonable. One consequence of the wording used is that, if the fees levied in the event exceed the cost of operating the scheme, the original position will remain valid provided that it can be said that the district council reasonably considered such fees would be required to meet the total cost of operating the scheme."
1 Citers
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 2 AC 1; [1991] 2 WLR 372; [1991] 1 All ER 545
1991
HL
Lord Templeman
Local Government, Financial Services
The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were void, there being no express power in the relevant legislation. Held: The arrangements formed no proper part of a local authority's statutory functions, and were therefore ultra vires, and not binding on the authority. They were not ancillary to any statutory obligation, nor were they entered into in order to support any borrowing. Section 111(1) embodies the principles relating to the powers of a company as set out in Great Eastern Railway.
The word "functions" in this context "embraces all the duties and powers of a local authority; the sum total of the activities Parliament has entrusted to it. Those activities are its functions."
Local Government Act 1963 1 - Local Government Act 1972 111 - Local Government Finance Act 1982 19
1 Cites
1 Citers
Trustees of the Chippenham Golf Club v North Wiltshire District Council (1991) 64 P and CR 527
1991
Local Government
1 Citers
Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (1991) 90 LGR 462; [1992] ICR 639
1991
CA
Parker LJ, McCowan LJ and Sir John Megaw
Employment, Local Government
The district auditor declared that payments made by the Council under an "enhanced voluntary severance scheme", established by it in connection with its policy of not making employees compulsorily redundant, were unlawful. The payments were considerably in excess of the amounts which the council was obliged to pay under the employment legislation. Held:The Council did not have power to make awards in excess of the limits set out in the 1972 Act. The powers of the local authority to make payments to employees under either ss 111 or 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 were subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State pursuant to sections 7 and 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972; the payments under the scheme were for redundancy; and the regulations under the Superannuation Act did not authorise the council to make payments for redundancy in excess of redundancy payments provided for in the employment legislation.
Parker LJ said: " . . the plain intention of Parliament [was] that the Secretary of State , subject to Parliamentary power to annul regulations in accordance with the Act, should be in complete charge of what is to be or may be paid on redundancy in addition to the payments provided for by the Act of 1978"
Superannuation Act 1972 112 - Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 81 - Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 111 112
1 Citers
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd Gazette, 12 June 1991; [1991] 3 WLR 985
12 Jun 1991
CA
Local Government, Litigation Practice
1 Citers
Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd; HL 14-Nov-1991 - Gazette, 22 January 1992; [1992] 2 AC 48; [1989] UKHL 4; [1991] 3 WLR 941
