Local Government Finance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Mohammed) v London Borough of Southwark
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 24 Febrero 2009

    The liability that the Council was seeking to enforce was an existing liability under the Council Tax Regulations to pay a sum on account of Mr Mohammed's (future) liability to pay council tax. The liability to pay council tax for the rest of the financial year after 25 th November 2005 was contingent upon Mr Mohammed continuing to occupy the premises each day until the end of that financial year (as the Regulations assumed he would).

    The position in respect of the next financial year, from 1 st April 2006 to 31 st March 2007, was different. As at 25 th November 2005, Mr Mohammed had no accrued liability to pay the council tax itself, as that liability arose day by day under the Local Government Finance Act.

  • R (on the application of Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 Octubre 2014

    Fairness is a protean concept, not susceptible of much generalised enlargement. But its requirements in this context must be linked to the purposes of consultation. Such are two valuable practical consequences of fair consultation. But underlying it is also a third purpose, reflective of the democratic principle at the heart of our society. This third purpose is particularly relevant in a case like the present, in which the question was not

    In the present context, the local authority is discharging an important function in relation to local government finance, which affects its residents generally. The statutory obligation is, "before making a scheme", to consult any major precepting authority, to publish a draft scheme, and, critically, to "consult such other persons as it considers are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme".

  • R (W) v Birmingham City Council
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 19 Mayo 2011

    I readily accept that throughout the process the Council was giving consideration to how to address the needs of the disabled. In that sense its decisions taken in relation to adult social care were decisions which were relevant to its performance of the s 49A duty.

  • R Shane Williams v Caerphilly County Borough Council
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 24 Junio 2019

    I now turn to the second question posed at paragraph 6 above – was the discharge of the section 111 power, the decision to adopt the Sports Strategy, “concerned with” the Council's budget, borrowing or capital expenditure? (The Officer's Report for the Cabinet meeting on 14 November 2018 said as much as paragraph 7.1 – see below at paragraph 15 of this judgment.)

  • R (on the application of DAT (by his mother and litigation friend) and another) v West Berkshire Council
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 22 Julio 2016

    Section 27(1)(a) of the 2014 Act imposes a duty on a local authority to keep under review, among other things, its social care provision for children with disabilities. Section 27(2) requires it to consider the extent to which that provision is sufficient to meet the social care needs of the young people concerned. Section 27(3) of the 2014 Act imposes a duty on a local authority to consult with a wide range of local bodies when it exercises the functions imposed by section 27.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT