R v Manchester City Council, ex parte Donald King
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 March 1991 |
| Date | 27 March 1991 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Nolan and Mr Justice Roch
Local government - revenue - street licence trading fees
A local authority was not empowered to raise revenue generally by means of street licence trading fees under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The purpose of the Act was to control street trading. Fees had to be assesed in relation to the cost of administering and controlling the street trading scheme.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in allowing an application by Donald King, as representative of the Manchester City Street Traders Association, for judicial review to quash decisions made by Manchester City Council to increase its street trading licence fees.
Paragraph 9 of the fourth schedule to the 1982 Act provides: "(1) A district council may charge such fees as they consider reasonable for the grant or renewal of a street trading licence or a street trading consent."
Mr Paul Stinchcombe for Mr King; Mr Charles Cross for the council.
MR JUSTICE ROCH said that on March 7, 1990, Manchester City Council resolved that the fee for a street trading licence in the centre of the city should range from £1,000 to £2,500 a year. The annual fee for 1988 and 1989 had been £169. In 1987, £32 had been charged while in 1986 £30 had been levied.
Mr Cross submitted that a local authority was under a fiduciary duty to its chargepayers to maximise its income, that the council had had regard to market...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isle of Wight Council and Others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...the overall scheme. The deliberate making of a profit would take the activity into the realm of trading." 67 The FTT said that R v Manchester City Council, ex p King (1991) 89 LGR 696 had been cited as authority for that proposition; and they accepted it as a general proposition, subject t......
-
R (Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd and Others) v Westminster City Council
...sex establishments without licences". See also, albeit in the context of street trading licences, R v Manchester CC, ex p. King (1991) 89 LGR 696 at 710. (2) Directive 2006/123/EC, Services in the Internal 14 The Services Directive seeks to facilitate the exercise of freedom of establishme......
-
R David Attfield v The London Borough of Barnet
...does not exceed the costs of provision. These general provisions do not apply to charges under section 45(2)(b) RTRA 1984. 46 In R v Manchester City Council ex parte King 89 LGR 696, the Divisional Court (Nolan LJ and Roch J) held that a statutory scheme permitting the local authority to c......
-
Crédit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council
... ... Cas. 355 and United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada ... abolition of the Court of Star Chamber the Court of King's Bench and subsequently the High Court have played a ... agreement of the other members of the House, in ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 at 701. He adopted what Lord Diplock ... ...
-
Fiduciary Government: Decentring Property and Taxpayers' Interests
...Kensington and Chelsea The Times 7 April 1982.R. v. Hertfordshire CC, ex p. NALGO, 14 February 1991, lexis.R. v. Manchester CC, ex p. Ling 89 LGR 696.R. v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council ex p. Dtxon (1993) 92 LGR 168.R. v. Roberts, ex p. Scurr [1924] 2 KB 695.R. v. Secretary of State for ......