Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd: HL 14 Nov 1991

A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and ultra vires. A power to charge did not arise by necessary implication. The words ‘necessary implication’ imposed a test more rigorous than that which would be satisfied by what is reasonable, conducive, or incidental.


Lord Lowry


Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1992] 2 AC 48, [1989] UKHL 4, [1991] 3 WLR 941




Local Government Act 1972 111(1)


England and Wales


CitedAttorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Appeal fromThe London Borough of Barnet v Secretary of State for the Home Department, McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought to quash a decision letter. It had wanted to create a development, but the local authority considered it had not met the requirement to include affordable housing. It was agreed that a need existed for affordable housing, and . .

Cited by:

CitedSPH (Scotland) Ltd v Edinburgh City Council OHCS 25-Jun-2003
The respondent council was regularly asked to provide information by way of search information, and sought to charge a fee for the purpose.
Held: The provision of the information was discretionary and not in pursuance of any explicit power. . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedDixon and Another, Regina (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs QBD 10-Apr-2002
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for . .
CitedFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
CitedO’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
CitedNational Secular Society and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bideford Town Council Admn 10-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the placing of a prayer on the agenda of the respondent’s meetings.
Held: The claim succeeded. The placing of such elements on the Agenda was outside the powers given to the Council, and the action was ultra vires: . .
CitedDillner, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council Admn 27-Apr-2016
The claimant challenged the policy of the respondent council to replace many established trees along streets in the City.
Held: Permission to apply for review was refused: ‘Some concern has been expressed by objectors to the scheme that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87631