Local Government Law

Search for:
Subscribe

Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Email*

First name*
Last name*

Δ
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (56)
- Council Tax and Rates (77)
- Decision making and Contracts (276)
- Elections and Bylaws (33)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (120)
- General (17)
- Housing (151)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (108)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (224)
- Land, Goods and Services (74)
- Local Authority Powers (75)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (162)
- Social Care (79)
- Standards (24)
Disclaimer

This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Landlord Liability

December 17th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Essex County Council v Davies (2019) EWHC 3443 (QB) mainly concerned the long established Cavalier v Pope principle that a landlord is not liable for injuries arising from a property having been let in a dangerous state. The nine claimants were employees and visitors at a College leased from the County

Non-Domestic Rates

December 13th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and Rates

In Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and 16 Others v Derby City Council and 44 Others (2019) EWHC 3436 (Ch) the 17 Claimant NHS Foundation Trusts accepted that they occupied Hospitals and other properties on which they were liable to pay non-domestic rates to their local rating authorities, but claimed that they were entitled to a discount because they were a charity or occupied the relevant property wholly or mainly for charitable purposes: Section 43(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The claims failed. Morgan J held that Foundation Trusts, under the consolidating National Health Service Act 2006, albeit public benefit corporations, are not charities within Sections 1-4 of the Charities Act 2011.

Fees

December 12th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

The fixing by local authorities of fees for taxis and minicabs has been considered by the Court of Appeal in R (Rehman) v Wakefield Council and LGA (2019) EWCA Civ 2166. The charging power is Section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”). The Council’s case was not accepted that the costs of enforcing drivers’ conduct fell within Section 70 of the Act. The Court of Appeal said that it was clear from the wording of Section 70 in the context of the Act that the cost of monitoring and enforcing driver conduct could not be taken into account in fixing the vehicle licence fee. Part II of the Act provided for distinct and detailed regimes for (a) vehicle licences for taxis and private hire vehicles; (b) drivers’ licences; and (c) operators’ licences. Each type of licence was governed by a comprehensive and self-contained statutory regime which addressed grant, terms, suspension, revocation and fee. There was no cross-referencing in relation to any of those matters. Thus, the notion that the fee for one type of licence could reflect the costs involved in another was entirely contrary to the structure of the Act. The “control and supervision” referred to in Section 70 was control and supervision by the local authority, not the driver. It would be a strained and artificial interpretation of those words to claim that the local authority controlled the vehicle by monitoring and enforcing the driver’s behaviour. Moreover, the words in Section 70 could not have been intended by Parliament to authorise something entirely alien to the structure of Part II of the Act in view of its comprehensive self-contained regime for each category of licence. Nor could the proper interpretation of the legislation governing a licensing regime be affected by resource considerations.

Village Greens: “Statutory Incompatibility”

December 12th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and Services

In linked appeals R (Lancashire County Council) v SoS for DEFRA and R (NHS Property Services Ltd) v Surrey County Council (2019) UKSC 58, the Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the issue whether the concept of “statutory incompatibility” applies to prevent land from being registered as a village green where it is held for general statutory purposes.

Judicial Review

December 10th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ayers-Caesar, (2019) UKPC 44, Lord Sales for the majority of the Privy Council, reiterated, at paragraph 2, that (1) the threshold for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review is “low”; and (2) all that is to be examined is whether there is “an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success”; but (3) wider questions of the public interest may have “some bearing” on whether leave should be granted; and (4) if the Court is “confident” at the leave stage that the legal position is “entirely clear” and to the effect that “the claim could not succeed”, it would “usually be appropriate” for the Court to dispose of the matter at that stage.

Water and Sewerage Charges

December 3rd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames v Moss (2019) EWHC 3261 (Ch) was concerned with council houses and flats where the supply of water is not metered, and where the water authority does not bill the council tenants, but does bill the Council. Mr Moss, a secure tenant, was obliged to pay “water charges” to the Council, his landlord. The issue was as to the calculation of those charges, pursuant to the tenancy Read more »

Injunction

December 3rd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Injunctions may be granted to restrict street protests in order to pursue the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting others, as being lawful, necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, and not discriminatory. So held in Birmingham City Council v Afsar (2019) EWHC 3217 (QB), concerned with Read more »

Judicial Review

December 3rd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Judicial Review is available when a public function is being exercised: Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 54.2(1). A body may not be exercising a public function for all purposes. The question then is whether it is exercising a public function in the particular context and for the particular purposes. The applicable legal principles have been revisited by a Divisional Court (Davis LJ and Warby J) in R (Liberal Democrats and SNP) v ITV (2019) EWHC 3282 (Admin) from paragraph 65. The Court said, at paragraph Read more »

Proportionality

November 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty

B (Secure Accommodation Order) (2019) EWCA Civ 2025 is an appeal by a local authority against the refusal of its application for a secure accommodation order under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. The appeal raised important and overlapping questions on the interpretation of Section 25, including whether, when considering such an application, the Court is obliged to carry out an evaluation of “proportionality”, pursuant to Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR. Baker LJ addressed the HRA and proportionality from paragraph 74. On the meaning of “deprivation of liberty” in Article 5 he referred to Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3EHRR 332 at paragraphs 92-93 and P v Cheshire West and Cheshire Council (2014) UKSC 19, to the “degree and intensity of control” that amounts to “a deprivation of liberty”, and to in practice an Order under Section 25 involving a “deprivation of liberty” under Article 5, and an interference with the child’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8.

Consultation

November 25th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

Who should be notified of a consultation? What positive steps must be taken to make consultees aware of the invitation to express their views? This has been considered by Steyn J in R (British Blind and Shutter Association) v Secretary of State for HCLG (2019) EWHC 3162 (Admin). She ruled (paragraph 53) that there is a duty to take positive steps. However, she added (paragraph 54): “The duty to take such positive Read more »

Subscribe

Headings

Disclaimer