Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231; [1970] 3 All ER 871
1970

Willis J
Local Government, Planning
While it is not for the courts to interfere with the formulation or administration of the Minister's planning policies, the Minister is not able to dictate the exercise of discretion on the basis of a policy mandate.
1 Citers


 
Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster [1970] EWCA Civ 3; [1971] 1 QB 222; (1970) 21 P & CR 778; 68 LGR 757; [1970] 3 WLR 732; [1970] 3 All ER 496
22 Jul 1970
CA
Lord Denning MR, Sachs, Megaw LJJ
Planning, Local Government
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."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Westminster Bank Limited v The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Beverley Borough Council; HL 1971 - [1971] AC 508

 
 Hutton v Esher Urban District Council; CA 1973 - [1973] 2 All ER 1123
 
Western Stores Limited v The Council of The City of Orange [1973] UKPC 5; [1973] AC 774; [1973] 2 WLR 727
5 Feb 1973
PC
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Salmon
Commonwealth, Rating, Local Government
New South Wales - Where a public authority has exercised a power dependent on its prior formation of an opinion which was open on the facts before the authority, it is to be presumed, in default of reason to the contrary, that the requisite opinion was formed and the power was properly exercised.
[ Bailii ]
 
Lower Hutt City Council v Bank [1974] 1 NZLR 545
1974

McCarthy P
Commonwealth, Local Government
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court was asked about the validity of a decision of a local council where it was said that a councillor had already made up his mind: "It cannot be doubted that one of the cardinal principle of natural justice, and one of very wide application, is that in the absence of statutory authority or consensual agreement or the operation of necessity, no man can be a judge in his own cause. But again, the extent to which this fundamental principle applies must be governed by the relevant circumstances, including, especially, the statutory provisions relating to the function. It is a patent consequence of the rule that no man can be a judge in his own cause that where the circumstances reasonably indicate the likelihood of bias on the part of the adjudicator, he will, unless one of the exceptions stated above apply, be disqualified. It is now necessary to see, in the light of the applicable circumstances, to what extent these rules apply to a council dealing with objections to a proposed street stopping. It is obvious that before a council reaches the stage of deciding to put in motion the machinery for stopping, much investigation will have been undertaken and many decisions made. There will have been a resolution passed by the council. A fair minded and responsible person might well think that when a council have reached that stage of decision, a real likelihood of bias must be seen to be present, because the council must to a large extent have pre-determined the issue. Nevertheless, the Legislature, well-knowing this, has designedly left it to councils to determine at the next stage whether objections should be sustained. So something less than the scrupulous state of impartiality and its appearance required of Courts of justice is required of councils in these circumstances. We think that the state of impartiality which is required is the capacity in a council to preserve a freedom, notwithstanding earlier investigations and decisions, to approach their duty of inquiring into and disposing of the objections without a closed mind, so that if considerations advanced by objectors bring them to a different frame of mind they can, and will go back on their proposals ... "
1 Citers



 
 Hereford and Worcester County Council v Newman; CA 1975 - [1975] 2 All ER 673; [1975] 1 WLR 901
 
Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Kayne-Levenson [1975] QB 431
1975
CA
Lawton LJ
Licensing, Local Government
There is a clear public interest in the regulation of street markets.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 1052

 
 Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council; HL 12-May-1977 - [1978] AC 728; [1977] CLY 2030; [1977] 2 All ER 492; [1977] UKHL 4

 
 Wyatt v Hillingdon London Borough Council; CA 1978 - (1978) 76 LGR 727
 
Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another [1978] EWCA Civ 6; [1981] 2 All ER 204
22 May 1978
CA

Estoppel, Local Government
Estoppel cannot be used so as to fetter a statutory discretion entrusted to a local authority
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kent County Council v Batchelor [1979] 1 WLR 213
1979


Local Government

1 Citers


 
Regina v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East Area of England ex parte Bradford Metropolitan City Council [1979] 2 All ER 881; [1979] QB 287
1979
CA
Lord Denning MR
Administrative, Local Government
The court considered the meaning of 'maladministration' in the section. Held: Lord Denning MR said: "It will cover ‘bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on.’ It ‘would be a long and interesting list’ clearly open-ended, covering the manner in which a decision is reached or discretion is exercised; but excluding the merits of the decision itself or of the discretion itself. It follows that ‘discretionary decision, properly exercised which the complainant dislikes but cannot fault the manner in which it was taken, is excluded,’ . . In other words if there is no ‘maladministration’, the ombudsman may not question any decision taken by the authorities. He must not go into the merits of it or intimate any view as to whether it was right or wrong."
Parliament was "at pains" to ensure that the Ombudsman should not conduct an investigation "which might trespass in any way on the jurisdiction of the courts of law or of any tribunals."
Local Government Act 1974 26
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.