The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city with named others. The council was using the orders to attempt to control gang activities.
Held: Section 222 does not give a council substantive powers, but only powers supplemental to fulfilling its other duties. The powers were procedural in nature, allowing them to exercise powers formerly vested only in the Attorney General. The orders sought were in substance those for which the ASBO legislation provided, but the orders had been sought with evidence which would not have been admissible even on an application for an ASBO. The court below had been incorrect to hold that it did not have the jurisdiction claimed, the cases were not so exceptional as to allow the civil law to be used to support the criminal law. The judge could not on the evidence have been sufficiently sure that the defendants’ behaviour justified an order.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Rix LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1186, [2009] 1 WLR 1961, [2009] CP Rep 1, [2009] PTSR 503, [2009] 3 All ER 127, [2009] BLGR 367
Bailii
Local Government Act 1972 111 222, Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1), Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney 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 . .
Cited – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers HL 26-Jul-1977
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute . .
Cited – Kent County Council v Batchelor 1979
. .
Cited – Runnymede Borough Council v Ball CA 1986
An injunction was granted to restrain a nuisance because of a threat of irreversible damage. . .
Cited – Stoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
Cited – City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd CA 18-Apr-1988
An injunction had been granted to restrain Bovis from causing a noise nuisance outside certain hours specified in a notice served by the council under the 1974 Act which created a criminal offence ‘without reasonable excuse’ to contravene the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Cited – Wychavon District Council v Midlands (Special Events) Ltd 1988
Millett J commended a council for moving for a quia timet injunction in these words: ‘If they have good grounds for thinking that in any given case compliance with the law will not be secured by prosecution, they are entitled to apply for an . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
Cited – Nottingham City Council v Zain (a Minor) CA 31-Jul-2001
The council had power under the Act to seek, in its own name, an injunction to prevent an alleged drug-dealer minor to enter a housing estate, and put an end to public nuisances. The authority was not acting outside its powers if it considered the . .
Cited – Guildford Borough Council v Hein CA 27-Jul-2005
The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v James and Another CA 17-May-2013
The appellant challenged an injunction under the 2009 Act excluding him from parts of Birmingham. He said that it prevented him visiting his mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘It was for the judge to decide on the basis of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Litigation Practice, Crime
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.277357
