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: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 36 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Westminster City Council, ex parte Hutton (1985) 83 LGR 516
1985

Forbes J
Local Government, Licensing
H challenged the fee set for applying for a livence to operate a sex shop. The administrative costs on which the fee was based in the year in question included a sum representing the supposed shortfall in fee income against administrative costs in the previous year. Held: In setting the application fee for a sex shop licence, the fee could reflect not only the processing of applications but "inspecting premises after the grant of licences and for what might be called vigilant policing . . in order to detect and prosecute those who operated sex establishments without licences".
The Council was free to fix fees reflecting all the three necessary elements on a rolling basis without adjusting surpluses and deficits in each year.
Forbes J said: "I accept entirely that to carry forward a deficit from one year to another may result in anomalies when considering the effect of that process on applicants for grants or renewal of what are annual licences. The persons who, in the year in which the deficit is brought in, seek the grant or renewal of licences may well not be the same people who sought the grant or renewal in the previous year. Those in the previous year may have been fortunate to be undercharged. There is no certainty that, by bringing the deficit into the next year's accounts and therefore recouping from the next year's applicants, the authority will be exacting the money from those who morally ought to pay. But to my mind such a comparison is itself irrelevant in the context of local authority finance. The statutory accounts of local authorities are structured on the basis that shortfalls in one year must be carried into the next year's accounts. The identity of the ratepayers who contribute to the General Rate Fund is changing all the time. If an authority, as a matter of policy, which is itself not challenged on the ground of immateriality, decides that the cost of a service from year to year shall not fall on the ratepayers, that decision would benefit ratepayers of different identities and may disadvantage or advantage from year to year different persons who benefit from the service. I accept [Westminster's counsel's] contention that when a charge is based on an annual budget, which must be concerned with situations which themselves will not be verifiable until after the end of the year in question, the only sensible way to fix the level of the charge is to take one year with another."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Wear Valley District Council, ex p Binks [1985] 2 All ER 699
1985

Taylor J
Local Government
The applicant operated a hot food takeaway caravan from a market place. She had no written licence, operating under an informal arrangement with the local authority. Her rights were terminated without notice. Held: The decision was quashed. It had been made in breach of the rules of natural justice.The court rejected the submission that decisions such as Hook were to be distinguished because the principles enunciated in them were only to be applied where there is a statutory market or something akin to a statutory market. "Moreover, in the present case the Market Place at Crook is conceded to be a place to which the public has right of resort at all times. It is not a highway, but it is nevertheless a place to which the public has a right of access and on which the council have a discretion whether to allow street traders or not. During the day, the Market Place is in fact used for a market. When it is not being so used between prescribed hours it is used as a public car park for which no charge is made. It therefore seems to me that the local authority in granting or revoking licences to street traders to operate in the Market Place are in exactly the same situation as that envisaged in the Basildon case by all three members of the Court of Appeal. It seems to me that there is a public law element in the decisions of the council with regard to whom they license and whom they do not license to trade in the Market Place."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Quietlynn Ltd; 1985 - [1985] 83 LGR 461
 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985] AC 461; [1984] UKHL 2; [1984] 3 All ER 83; [1984] 3 WLR 563
1985
HL
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Local Government, Judicial Review, Housing
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the resolutions and notices of increase were ultra vires and void, on the grounds that they were Wednesbury unreasonable, and counterclaiming for a declaration to that effect. The tenant proposed adducing some evidence to support his case of unreasonableness. The local authority sought to strike out the defence and counterclaim as an abuse of process, on the grounds that the tenant should be debarred from challenging the conduct of the local authority other than by application for judicial review under RSC, Ord 53. Held: Mr Winder was entitled as of right to challenge the local authority's decision by way of defence in the proceedings which it had brought against him. The decision was based on "the ordinary rights of private citizens to defend themselves against unfounded claims."
As a matter of construction of the relevant legislation, those rights had not been swept away by the procedural reforms introducing the new RSC Ord 53. Where the issue of a private law right depending on a prior public law decision is raised as a defence to a claim, then the point does not have to be dealt with by judicial review.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said: "It would in my opinion be a very strange use of language to describe the respondent's behaviour in relation to this litigation as an abuse or misuse by him of the process of the court. He did not select the procedure to be adopted. He is merely seeking to defend proceedings brought against him by the appellants. In so doing he is seeking only to exercise the ordinary right of any individual to defend an action against him on the ground that he is not liable for the whole sum claimed by the plaintiff. Moreover he puts forward his defence as a matter of right, whereas in an application for judicial review, success would require an exercise of the court's discretion in his favour. Apart from the provisions of Order 53 and section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, he would certainly be entitled to defend the action on the ground that the plaintiff's claim arises from a resolution which (on his view) is invalid: see for example Cannock Chase District Council v. Kelly [1978] 1 WLR 1, which was decided in July 1977, a few months before Order 53 came into force (as it did in December 1977). I find it impossible to accept that the right to challenge the decision of a local authority in course of defending an action for non-payment can have been swept away by Order 53, which was directed to introducing a procedural reform. As my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman said in Reg. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1982] AC 617, 647G "The new R.S.C., Ord. 53 is a procedural reform of great importance in the field of public law, but it does not - indeed, cannot - either extend or diminish the substantive law. Its function is limited to ensuring 'ubi jus, ibi remedium."' Lord Wilberforce spoke to the same effect at p. 631A. Nor, in my opinion, did section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which refers only to "an application" for judicial review have the effect of limiting the rights of a defendant sub silentio."
Housing Act 1957
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning; 1985 - [1985] 84 LGR 168
 
Regina v Waltham Forest, Ex parte Vale Unreported, 11 February 1985
11 Feb 1985

Taylor J
Local Government
The court had to decide what was the ordinary reference under the 1948 of an adult without capacity. V had been in residential care in Ireland for over 20 years, but having left there had been with her mother for two weeks. The parties argued the case using the test in Shah. Held: The court adopted a two-part approach suggested by counsel, but on either approach he considered that her residence with her parents could be treated as sufficiently settled to satisfy the Shah test.
National Assistance Act 1948
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re Wheeler [1985] [1985] 2 All ER 151
14 Mar 1985
CA

Local Government
The local authority disapproved of the Rugby Union maintaining links in South Africa. They banned the local team from access to a local recreation ground for club matches, save for training, when three local players were chosen to go on a tour of South Africa. The authority complained that the club had not condemned the tour and forbidden its club members from playing. Held. (Wilkinson LJ dissenting) The club's appeal failed.
1 Citers


 
Wheeler v Leicester City Council; In re Wheeler and others [1985] UKHL 6; [1985] AC 1054; [1985] 3 WLR 335; [1985] 2 All ER 151
25 Jul 1985
HL
Lord Roskill, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths
Local Government
The Council opposed sporting links with South Africa. The local rugby club failed to denounce apartheid and did not seek to dissuade three of its players touring with the national side. The Court of Appeal had refused judicial review of the council's decsion to ban the club from playing at the ground which it owned. Held: The club's appeal succeeded. The Council could not rely on the 1976 Act which had different purposes, but had other discretions and powers, and "persuasion, however powerful, must not be allowed to cross that line where it moves into the field of illegitimate pressure coupled with the threat of sanctions."
Race Relations Act 1976 71
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Runnymede Borough Council v Ball; CA 1986 - [1986] 1 WLR 353
 
Lloyd v McMahon [1987] 1 All ER 1118
1986
CA
Woolf, Lawton LJJ
Local Government
Councillors had been surcharged by the district auditor. The Act provided for an appeal to the High Court by anyone "aggrieved" by the decision of an auditor, and further provided that on the hearing of the appeal "the court may confirm, vary or quash the decision and give any certificate which the auditor could have given", which Lawton LJ considered must mean "that the court rehears the case."
Local Government Act 1982 161
1 Citers


 
Regina v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council [1986] 1 All ER 19
1986

Glidewell J
Administrative, Local Government
A political purpose can taint an administrative decision with impropriety.
1 Citers


 
Parker v Camden Borough Council [1986] 1 Ch 162
1986


Local Government

1 Citers



 
 Enfield London Borough Council v McKeon; CA 1986 - [1986] 1 WLR 1007
 
Shears Court (West Mersea) Management Company Ltd v Essex County Council [1986] 85 LGR 479
1986
ChD
Prosser QC
Local Government, Land
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.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53
1 Citers


 
Kelly v Monklands District Council 1986 SLT 169
1986


Scotland, Housing, Children, Local Government
A local authority's housing duties may be owed to a child if that child is living independently of its parents.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Cheung Times, 04 April 1986
4 Apr 1986


Local Government
The court emphasised the need for consistency in the award of educational grants.
1 Citers


 
Westminster City Council v Croyalgrange Ltd and Another [1986] UKHL 9; (1986) 150 JP 449; [1986] 1 WLR 674; [1986] 2 All ER 353; 84 LGR 801; (1986) 83 Cr App R 155; [1986] Crim LR 693
15 May 1986
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Crime, Local Government
The defendants had been acquitted of running a sex establishment otherwise than in accordance with a licence from the appellant authority. The defendant had leased premises which were known to have been running such, but the defendant director had not been shown to have known that the tenant did not have a licence. The Council said that it having shown the use, no onus lay on the prosecutor to show knowledge of the absence of a licence. Held: The council's appeal failed. "the word "knowingly" in paragraph 20(1 )(a) cannot sensibly have been introduced merely to apply to the use which the defendant is making, or causing or permitting another to make, of premises as a sex establishment. I can conceive of no circumstances in which a person could be said to be using premises, still less of causing or permitting them to be used, "to a significant degree for the exhibition" of pornographic films or "for a business which consists to a significant degree" of the sale of pornographic material if that person were ignorant of the nature of the offending use. If the argument for the council is right, the word "knowingly" is tautologous . . If the argument for the council were accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that paragraph 20(l)(a) had in effect created an offence of strict liability. The offence would consist in the unlawful use of premises as a sex establishment and even an honest belief in facts which, if true, would make the use lawful would afford no defence. It is trite law that the legislature's intention to create an offence of strict liability must be signified by clear language. To find such an intention in paragraph 20(1 )(a) with its iteration of the word "knowingly" is obviously impossible. "
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 48 Sch 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Brent London Boriugh Council, ex parte Assegai (1987) 151 LGR 891
1987

Woolf LJ
Local Government
A committee of the Borough resolved to ban Mr Assegai, who had been involved in a fracas and had made offensive remarks to two Councillors, from visiting any of the Borough's properties. The resolution also purported to remove him from his appointment as a Community Governor of a school. Mr Assegai sought to have the ban quashed. Held: He succeeded. He was banned from visiting all Council properties, irrespective of circumstances. This was wholly out of proportion to his offences. Such a lack of proportion was itself held to be indicative of unreasonableness in a "Wednesbury" sense.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Beddowes [1987] 1 QB 1050
1987
CA
Fox LJ, Sir Denys Buckley
Local Government
The authority agreed to sell part of a housing estate. It proposed to enter into restrictive covenants for the retained parts of the estate to prevent the letting of any vacant flat except by way of a long lease at a premium. The decision was challenged on the basis that this would be an unlawful fetter upon the authority powers for the use of its housing stock, namely the retained land. Held: Since the Council's policy, albeit designed to produce owner occupancy rather than rental occupancy, was consistent with the purpose of using the estate for housing accommodation in the district, the submission to the proposed restrictive covenants would not be an unlawful fetter on the Council's powers.
Fox LJ: "The attack as developed on the appeal is, as I have indicated, really based upon the contention that the covenants fetter the council's discretion to deal with the retained land and are bad accordingly.
The first question, I think, in relation to that contention is whether the council is entitled to impose on its retained land covenants which were restrictive of its user of that land. In my opinion it is.
In general, I do not understand it to be disputed that there was power in the council (as the judge held) to create restrictive covenants under the Housing Acts, or otherwise. Power to create restrictive covenants does not, however, resolve the question whether the covenants constitute an unlawful fetter . . . It is clear that a local authority cannot, in general, make declarations of policy which are binding in future on the council for the time being. A council cannot extinguish statutory powers in that way. But it may be able to do so by the valid exercise of other statutory powers. If a statutory power is lawfully exercised so as to create legal rights and obligations between the council and third parties, the result will be that the council for the time being is bound, even though that hinders or prevents the exercise of other statutory powers.
What we are concerned with in the present case are overlapping or conflicting powers. There is a power to create covenants restrictive use of the retained land; and there are powers in relation to the user of the retained land for housing purposes. In these circumstances, it is necessary to ascertain for what purpose the retained land is held. All other powers are subordinate to the main power to carry out the primary purpose . . . Now the purpose for which the Fulham Court estate is held by the council must be the provision of housing accommodation in the district. The council's policy in relation to the estate, as I have set it out above, seems to me to be consistent with that purpose. … The policy, it is true, is designed to produce owner-occupancy and not rented accommodation. Historically, local authority housing has been rented. But a substantial inroad upon that was made by Part 1 of the Housing Act 1980, which gave municipal tenants the right to purchase their dwellings. In the circumstances it does not seem to me that a policy which is designed to produce good accommodation for owner-occupiers is now any less within the purposes of the Housing Acts than the provision of rented housing.
It seems to me that if the purpose for which the power to create restrictive covenants is being exercised can reasonably be regarded as the furtherance of the statutory object, then the creation of the covenants is not an unlawful fetter. All the powers are exercisable for the achieving of the statutory objects in relation to the land, and the honest and reasonable exercise of a power for that purpose cannot properly be regarded as a fetter upon another power given for the same purpose.
We were referred to the decision in Ayr Harbour Trustees… But that was a case where the trustees simply 'renounced part of their statutory birthright.' There was an incompatibility between what they were proposing to do and the actual statutory purpose. In the present case, as it seems to me, the purpose of the contract is the same as the statutory purpose. "
After citing Devlin LJ in Blake v Hendon:"'For example, a man selling a part of his land might object to a refreshment pavilion on his boundary. Provided that the erection of a refreshment pavilion on that spot was not essential to the use of the land as a pleasure ground, the local authority could properly covenant not to erect one, notwithstanding that it had statutory power to do so. This illustrates the proper application of the principle in the Ayr case" and
"I can see that there is something to be said for the view that so long as the council retains Part V land it should retain all the powers which the statute gives in relation to that land. That is simple and logical. But I think it is too inflexible and takes insufficient account of the practical difficulties of administering such an estate as Fulham Court. To bring it up to standard, money has to be found and compromises have to be made. It is not practicable to sell the whole estate at once. It has to be phased in order to prevent excessive voids and high loss of income. On 21 March 1986 only Block A (32 flats) was totally empty. But the scheme was quite far advanced. Out of a total of 372 flats, 189 were empty. The policy having been decided upon, it was necessary to press ahead with it".
Sir Denys Buckley: "I am clearly of the opinion that, if a statutory authority acting in good faith in the proper and reasonable exercise of its statutory powers undertakes some binding obligation, the fact that such obligation may thereafter preclude the authority from exercising its statutory powers in some other way, cannot constitute an impermissible fetter on its powers. Any other view would involve that the doctrine against fettering itself would involve a fetter on the authority's capacity to exercise its powers properly and reasonably as it thinks fit from time to time. So, in my view the decision of the present case depends primarily upon whether the council was acting properly and reasonably in proposing to covenant with Barratts in the terms of the second schedule covenants. For the reasons indicated by Fox L.J., I think this was so."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 W v United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 29

 
 Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council; HL 1987 - [1987] ICR 368; [1987] 2 WLR 795; [1987] 1 AC 539; [1987] UKHL 15; [1987] IRLR 193; [1987] 1 All ER 1089; [1987] 1 FTLR 533
 
Cuffy v City of New York (1987) 513 NYS2d 372; (1987) 505 NE2d 937; (1987) 69 NY2d 255
1987


Negligence, Local Government
New York Court of Appeals - The court set out the elements of a special relationship between a municipality and a plaintiff which would negate a municipality's claim to immunity: "(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking."
1 Citers



 
 Lloyd v McMahon; HL 12-Mar-1987 - [1987] AC 625; [1987] UKHL 5; [1987] 1 All ER 1118; [1987] 2 WLR 821

 
 Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited; HL 1988 - [1988] 1 AC 858
 
Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council [1988] QB 853
1988
CA
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Administrative, Local Government
Maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the decision itself.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR set out the correct view of the relationship between a local authority and the Ombudsman: "There is the suggestion that the Council should issue a statement disputing the right of the Ombudsman to make his findings and that this would provide the Council with an adequate remedy. Such an action would wholly undermine the system of Ombudsman's reports and would, in effect, provide for an appeal to the media against his findings. The parliamentary intention was that reports by Ombudsmen should be loyally accepted by the local authorities concerned. This is clear from Section 30, subsection 4 and subsection 5 which require the local authority to make the report available for inspection by the public and to advertise this fact, from Section 31(1) which requires the local authority to notify the Ombudsman of the action which it has taken and proposes to take in the light of his report and from Section 31(2) which entitles the Ombudsman to make a further report if the local authority's response is not satisfactory."
Local Government Act 1974
1 Citers


 
Cheshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] JPL 30
1988

Schiemann J
Local Government
The court was asked as to the authority of an assistant solicitor to issue an enforcement notice when the standing orders which dealt with delegated powers referred in this context, but not in others, to the County Solicitor and Secretary alone. The Secretary of State for the Environment had allowed an appeal against the enforcement notice on the basis that where a delegation had taken place to a named officer, a subordinate to whom no delegation had been made had no power to exercise the relevant discretion. Held: The Secretary of States's distinguishment of the Provident Mutual Life case was wrong. That decision was of general application and not just restricted to rating cases.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, Ex parte Baxter [1988] QB 419
1988
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Stocker LJ, Russell LJ
Local Government
Challenge was made to the way the Council set its rate. Prior to the decision, the majority group held a private meeting at which a decision was reached following a vote on the appropriate increase. It was then the duty of the members to vote in accordance with that decision and a number of members who had at the private meeting voted against the increase supported it. Held: Councillors have a duty to vote in accordance with their beliefs and consciences irrespective of any party membership. The court set out four principles as to the proper discharge of the duty to consult. First, consultation must be carried out at a formative stage of the proposals. Second, those being consulted must be given adequate information to make a response. Third, there must be sufficient time for a response. Fourth, the outcome of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when finalising the proposals.
Russell LJ: "The vote becomes unlawful only when the councillor allows these considerations of any other outside influences so to dominate as to exclude other considerations which are required for a balanced judgment. If, by blindingly toeing the party line, the councillor deprives himself of any real choice or the exercise of any real discretion, then his vote can be impugned and any resolution supported by his vote potentially flawed."
Stocker LJ: "I can see no reason why a councillor should not vote in favour of the resolution contrary to his own intellectual assessment of its merits, taken in isolation, in order to secure unanimity of vote, provided he retains an unfettered discretion in the council chamber. There is nothing, in my view, morally or legally culpable in voting in support of a majority which has considered, and rejected, his arguments providing he considers all the available options and considers that the maintenance of such unanimity is of greater value to the ratepayers than insistence upon his own view. This is not invalidated by the fact that certain sanctions, which could be imposed upon a failure to accept the party whip, might follow as a consequence."
Lord Donaldson MR: "It is well settled that councillors can have general policies in relation to any matter, including the licencing of theatres and cinemas, and the distinction which I think is being made is between a situation in which the council has to determine a factual matrix to which a policy may well be applied from one in which no determination of particular facts is necessary. It is not possible to have a policy as to the existence of facts and they have to be determined by each member on the evidence." and "Mr Wadsworth submitted that in the light of the requirement for rates to be fixed by the Council, the private determination of a group policy in this context did undermine statutory safeguards. I do not agree. So long as councillors are free to remain members despite the withdrawal of the whip and so long as they remember that whatever degree of importance they may attach to group unity and uniformity with group policy, the ultimate decision is for them and them alone as individuals, I cannot see that there is any undermining of statutory safeguards."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Nichol v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (1988) 87 LGR 435
1988
CA
Taylor LJ, Connor LJ
Judicial Review, Local Government
Gateshead, confronted by a falling birth rate and therefore an inability to sustain a viable sixth form in all its secondary schools, decided to set up sixth form colleges instead. Local parents had failed to establish that Gateshead's prior consultation had been unlawful, and appealed. Held: Gateshead had made clear what the other options were. The appeal failed.
The court described how it was to exercise any discretion it had to give relief on an application for judicial review: "The court has an overall discretion as to whether to grant relief or not. In considering how that discretion should be exercised, the court is entitled to have regard to such matters as the following: (1) The nature and importance of the flaw in the challenged decision. (2) The conduct of the applicant. (3) The effect on administration of granting relief." It permissible for an authority to have a preferred option (Connor LJ).
1 Citers


 
Regina v Lambeth Borough Council ex parte Clayhope Properties Limited [1988] QB 562
1988


Local Government
A local authority may plead the invalidity of its own repairs notices in resisting tenants applications for grants to meet the costs of compliance.
1 Citers



 
 Avon District Council v Buscott; 1988 - [1988] QB 656

 
 Wychavon District Council v Midlands (Special Events) Ltd; 1988 - [1988] 1 CMLR 397
 
City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 697
18 Apr 1988
CA
Bingham LJ
Local Government
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 notice. A number of informations were laid against Bovis but they were adjourned and the injunction was sought in the meantime. Bovis appealed contending that an injunction should not be granted unless it was first established that the defendant had committed an offence and that the defendant was deliberately and flagrantly flouting the law, neither of which could be established. Held: The appeal failed. The court considered the circumstances in which a local authority might seek an injunction to support its attempt to enforce legislation. The guiding principles are: "(1) that the jurisdiction is to be invoked and exercised exceptionally and with great caution . .
(2) that there must certainly be something more than mere infringement of the criminal law before the assistance of civil proceedings can be invoked and accorded for the protection or promotion of the interests of the inhabitants of the area . .
(3) that the essential foundation for the exercise of the court's discretion to grant an injunction is not that the offender is deliberately and flagrantly flouting the law but the need to draw the inference that the defendant's unlawful operations will continue unless and until effectively restrained by the law and that nothing short of an injunction will be effective to restrain them. …"
Control of Pollution Act 1974 60
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Norfolk County Council, ex parte M; QBD 1989 - [1989] 2 All ER 359; [1989] QB 619

 
 Ryeford Homes v Seven Oaks District Council; 1989 - [1989] 46 BLR 34
 
Regina v North Riding of Yorkshire County Council [1989] 1 QB 201
1989


Local Government, Agriculture
The constituent councils, not having exercised the power to impose restrictions and conditions in advance, could not decline responsibility for items of expenditure necessarily incurred by the committee. Restrictions or conditions had to be imposed by unanimous agreement between all the councils concerned.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Croydon London Borough Council [1989] 1 All ER 1033
1989


Local Government, Administrative
Delay in application.
1 Citers


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