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.’
Judges:
Lord Donaldson MR, Stocker LJ, Russell LJ
Citations:
[1988] QB 419
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Amber Valley District Council ex parte Dickson QBD 1984
One group on the council decided to support a proposed planning application. It was then asked whether that prevented a member of the group sitting on the committee which would assess it. There was an affidavit from the leader of the majority group . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jones v Swansea City Council CA 1990
The defendant council had originally resolved in favour of allowing the plaintiff to use premises leased to her by the council as a club; the plaintiff’s husband was at that time a member of the majority group on the council; there was then an . .
Cited – Regina v Buckinghamshire County Council ex parte Milton Keynes Borough Council Admn 28-Oct-1996
Application was made to review the decision of Buckinghamshire to establish a grammar school within Milton Keynes. Responsibility for education within Milton Keynes was to be transferred to them shortly, and the cost of completing th eproject would . .
Cited – Island Farm Development Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Bridgend County Borough Council Admn 25-Aug-2006
The claimant applied for a review of a decision by the respondent council not to sell it land.
Held: The challenge failed. The councillors had acted in accordance with advice given to them by officers, and ‘the committee was concerned only to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194978