Councillors’ Duties replace Election Promises
Bromley complained of a supplementary precept issued by the respondent to implement a commitment, contained in an election manifesto for the election in May 1979, upon which the majority on the GLC had been elected.
Held: In making choices of policy or action on particular matters following an election, those who were elected must not ‘treat themselves as irrevocably bound to carry out pre-announced policies contained in election manifestos.’ The Council had a fiduciary duty owed to all rate payers and council tax payers to conserve its available financial resources. Its duties were owed not just to ratepayers, but In making choices of policy or action on particular matters following an election, those who were elected must not ‘treat themselves as irrevocably bound to carry out pre-announced policies contained in election manifestos.’
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said: ‘It is, of course, entirely appropriate for a council, the majority of whose members have been elected after setting out a particular policy in their election manifesto, to take into account, and give considerable weight to, that circumstance when exercising their discretion in relation to that policy after they have been elected and come to power. It is, however, entirely wrong for such a majority to regard themselves as bound to exercise their discretion in relation to that the policy in accordance with their election promises, whatever the cost and other countervailing considerations may turn out to be.’
Lord Diplock, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Keith, Lord Scarman, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
[1983] AC 768, [1982] 1 All ER 153, [1981] UKHL 7, [1982] 2 WLR 62
Bailii
Transport (London) Act 1969
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – Regina v Braintree District Council ex parte Halls Admn 2-Jul-1999
Where a local authority had sold a property to a tenant, and the tenant later came back to request the release from one of the covenants given on the sale, the council was free to charge an appropriate sum for that release. It was not a covenant . .
Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Cited – Partingdale Lane Residents’ Association, Regina (on the Application of) v Barnet London Borough Council Admn 2-Apr-2003
Complaint was made that a Councillor had closed his mind to any arguments and had predetermined the decision on a proposed road re-opening order.
Held: The application was allowed. Councillor Coleman had himself gone beyond a legitimate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.187441
