R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council, ex parte Corris

This is an appeal by Mr. Frederick Edward Corris against an Order of the Divisional Court dated 17th January 1989 dismissing his application for judicial review of resolutions passed by the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council (the Council) at the meeting of the Council held on 25th October 1988. The appeal raises a number of issues including:

These four issues, which have been described as subsidiary issues, are raised by the respondent's notice served on behalf of the Council (464). By agreement between counsel, however, it has been decided that at this stage argument on these issues should be deferred until the court has reached a conclusion on the main questions in dispute.

The two main questions to be decided, of which the first raises a point of some general importance, can be stated as follows:

In addition a further argument was raised, but was not developed, to the effect that in exercising his casting vote in favour of this resolution Mr. Midgeley acted contrary to the Standing Orders of the Council. As this point was not pursued by counsel for Mr. Corris I do not think it necessary to say anything more about it. I turn therefore to the first of the two questions which I have formulated above.

THE USE OF A CASTING VOTE IN GENERAL

The word "casting" in this context appears to be derived from an archaic use of the word "cast" as meaning to turn or tilt a scale or balance. A casting vote is therefore a vote which is decisive in that it turns or tilts the scales on one side or another. The dictionaries indicate that the phrase "casting vote" was in use in the 17th Century and it may be noted that Richard Bentley used it in one of his Boyle lectures in 1692.

In the present case, however, we are concerned with the regime for the conduct of meetings and proceedings of local authorities established by Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972. Any views which I express in the present case are therefore intended to be confined to meetings which are subject to this statutory regime.

Part I of Schedule 12 is concerned with the meetings and proceedings of Principal Councils which would include a council such as that with which we are concerned. Other Parts of Schedule 12 are concerned with the meetings and proceedings of other bodies including Parish Councils and Community Councils. Part VI contains provisions relating to local authorities generally. Paragraph 39 forms part of Part VI of Schedule 12 and is in these terms:

It is to be noted that by reason of paragraph 44(1) paragraph 39 applies in relation to a committee of a local authority (including a joint committee) and to a sub-committee of any such committee, in the same way as it applies in relation to a local authority itself.

The first question which I have formulated above involves the construction of paragraph 39 in its legislative setting. Before turning to the arguments, however, it is necessary to state the few relevant facts.

Elections to the council took place on 5th May 1988. Before the election the 90 seats were divided as follows: Labour 49, Conservative 38, Liberal 3. In the election the Conservatives made some gains and after 5th May the position was as follows: Labour 44, Conservative 43, SLD 2. In addition there was one vacancy. On 17th June 1988 a by-election took place to fill the vacant seat. A Conservative was elected so that thereafter both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party had 44 seats each and the SLD had 2. On 16th September 1988 there was a further by-election. This seat was won by the Conservative candidate and the Conservative Party then became the majority party with 45 seats to the 43 seats of the Labour Party. The SLD continued to hold 2 seats. Following this change in the division of seats the Conservative councillors decided to introduce new policies. One of the new policies which were adopted involved a proposal to increase the rents paid by council tenants. This policy was opposed by both the Labour councillors and by the SLD councillors. At the meeting of the Council on 25th October 1988 a resolution to increase the rents was proposed by the Conservatives. Mr. Midgeley presided at the meeting. He exercised his vote as a councillor in favour of the resolution and no criticism is made of this action by him. When all the councillors had voted, however, there was an equality of votes, 45 votes having been recorded in favour of the resolution and 45 against. At this stage Mr. Midgeley was empowered to use a second, or casting, vote. Mr. Midgeley used this vote in favour of the resolution which consequently was carried. This is the resolution with which we are now concerned.

In the present proceedings Mr. Corris seeks to challenge the right of Mr. Midgeley as Lord Mayor and as the person presiding at the meeting on 25th October 1988 to use his second or casting vote as he did. It was said on behalf of Mr. Corris that it was the duty of the Lord Mayor to act impartially and that he failed to do so.

In the course of his helpful submissions counsel for Mr. Corris sought to explain to the court what was meant by impartiality in this context. In the form of a written submission he put the matter as...