Mixnam's Properties Ltd v Chertsey Urban District Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Viscount Radcliffe,Lord Guest,Lord Upjohn,Lord Donovan |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] UKHL J0505-1 |
| Date | 05 May 1964 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1964] UKHL J0505-1
Lord Reid
Viscount Radcliffe
Lord Guest
Lord Upjohn
Lord Donovan
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Chertsey Urban District Council against Mixnam's Properties Limited, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Wednesday the 4th, as on Thursday the 5th and Monday the 9th, days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Chertsey Urban District Council, whose office is situate at Chertsey, in the County of Surrey, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 23d of May 1963, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Mixnam's Properties Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 23d day of May 1963, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
The Respondents own and occupy a caravan site at Chertsey. They are entitled to the benefit of planning permission for it, but they also require a site licence from the Appellants, who are the Local Authority. The Appellants were bound to issue a site licence, but they were empowered by section 5 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, to attach conditions to it, and they did attach 37 conditions. The Respondents seek a declaration that six of these conditions are ultra vires and of no effect. The majority of the Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and Diplock L.JJ.) held that all six were ultra vires. Willmer L.J. held that three were valid and three invalid.
The conditions in dispute are as follows:
"(28). The site rents, which are to be inclusive of all services except electricity, shall be agreed with the Council.
(29). Security of tenure, subject to similar conditions appertaining to a statutory tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the Rent Acts shall be granted to all caravan occupiers.
(30). Site rules shall be restricted to those items normally covered by a tenancy agreement, and necessary for the good administration of the site.
(31). There shall be no restriction on caravan occupiers as to from whom they purchase the commodities that they require, or on the callers that they may have for purposes of Trade or Pleasure.
(32). No premium is to be charged for any caravan occupier entering the site, or any restriction as to the make or supplier of the caravan. Existing caravan occupiers purchasing new caravans shall not be compelled in any way to purchase a particular make of caravan or from a particular dealer.
(33). There shall be no restriction imposed on the caravan occupiers of the formation of, or membership of, any form of tenants' association, political party or other organisations."
I would think that conditions 29 and 30 are in such vague and uncertain terms as to be unenforceable. But it would not benefit either party to make a decision on that ground. The conditions could be rewritten in more definite form and the substantive question in this case would then come up again for decision.
I see no reason to think that the Appellants acted in any way unreasonably in seeking to impose these conditions. It is common knowledge that the difficulties of obtaining permission for new sites have limited the supply far below the demand in certain areas, and, as might have been expected, this has opened the door for exploitation by those who already have licensed sites. It is not suggested that the Respondents in this case have so acted: indeed, this is said to be a friendly action to settle the extent of local authorities' powers. But I am prepared to consider this case on the footing that it would be a good thing in some cases if conditions of this kind could be enforced. We, however, are not concerned with that. The question before your Lordships is whether they are within the scope of the 1960 Act. Section 5 provides:
"5.
(1) A site licence issued by a local authority in respect of any land may be so issued subject to such conditions as the authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land in the interests of persons dwelling thereon in caravans, or of any other class of persons, or of the public at large; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a site licence may be issued subject to conditions—
"( a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation, or the total number of caravans which are so stationed at any one time;
( b) for controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, any other feature) the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;
( c) for regulating the positions in which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation and for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating, the placing or erection on the land, at any time when caravans are so stationed, of structures and vehicles of any description whatsoever and of tents;
( d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes;
( e) for securing that, at all times when caravans are stationed on the land, proper measures are taken for preventing and detecting the outbreak of fire and adequate means of fighting fire are provided and maintained;
( f) for securing that adequate sanitary facilities, and such other facilities, services or equipment as may be specified, are provided for the use of persons dwelling on the land in caravans and that, at all times when caravans are stationed thereon for the purposes of human habitation, any facilities and equipment so provided are properly maintained.
(2) No condition shall be attached to a site licence controlling the types of caravans which are stationed on the land by reference to the materials used in their construction.
(3) A site licence issued in respect of any land shall, unless it is issued subject to a condition restricting to three or less the total number of caravans which may be stationed on the land at any one time, contain an express condition that, at all times when caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation, a copy of the licence as for the time being in force shall be displayed on the land in some conspicuous place.
(4) A condition attached to a site licence may, if it requires the carrying out of any works on the land in respect of which the licence is issued, prohibit or restrict the bringing of caravans on to the land for the purposes of human habitation until such time as the local authority have certified in writing that the works have been completed to their satisfaction; and where the land to which the site licence relates is at the time in use as a caravan site, the condition may, whether or not it contains any such prohibition or restriction as aforesaid, require the works to be completed to the satisfaction of the authority within a stated period.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a condition attached to a site licence shall be valid notwithstanding that it can be complied with only by the carrying out of works which the holder of the site licence is not entitled to carry out as of right.
(6) The Minister may from time to time specify for the purposes of this section model standards with respect to the layout of, and the provision of facilities, services and equipment for, caravan sites or particular types of caravan site; and in deciding what (if any) conditions to attach to a site licence, a local authority shall have regard to any standards so specified."
The Appellants maintain that the words in section 5(1) "such conditions as the authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier" are quite general: the only limitation is that the authority must reasonably think a particular condition desirable in the interests of the caravanners, or of any other class of persons, or of the public at large. But there is hardly any class of condition that might not be thought desirable in the interests of some of these persons, and when it comes to the interests of the public at large that would be making the authority the judges of the public interest.
The only check on the local authority is the right given by section 7 to any person aggrieved to appeal within 28 days to the Magistrates, who can vary or cancel any condition if they think it "unduly burdensome". If the Appellants are right, the Magistrates would have to weigh what the local authority regard as being in the public interest against the burden which compliance with the condition would place on the occupier of the site without any guidance how to carry out that very difficult task. Section 7 does require the Magistrates to have regard to model standards laid down by the Minister under section 5(6), but the subjects with which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Mohammad Hasan Imam v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of freedom of contract. In support the Claimant cites the well-known passage in the speech of Lord Upjohn in Mixnam's Properties Limited v Chertsey Urban District Council [1965] AC 735 (HL) at p.764: "… freedom to contract between the subjects of this country is a fundamental right even to......
- Wong Yuen Hock v Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd
-
Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd v Meadows and Others
...[2007] UKPC 50; [2007] All ER D 360 (Jul), Hall and Company Limited v Shoreham-by-Sea UDC and Another [1964] 1 WLR 240 and Chertsey UDC v Mixnam's Properties Limited [1965] AC 735 in support of his submissions. 97 The learned judge did not specifically examine the issue of severance of the......
- Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd
-
Does the Fiduciary Bell Toll?
...(1991) 'Chinese Walls Come Tumbling Down', International Financial LR 23. (20) [1895] AC 59. (21) Mixnam's Properties Ltd v Chertsey UDC [1965] AC 735 (22) See, in support of this approach, Strain v Law Society [1983] 1 AC 598. Kit Jarvis is at Downing College, Cambridge Page 195...