Re Westminster City Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Year | 1986 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 1986 |
Local Government - Powers - Exercise - General rate fund - Expenditure - Greater London Council to be abolished as from 1 April 1986 - Accounts projecting surplus at date of abolition - Decisions of council to allocate funds to education authority and various voluntary organisations - Whether ultra vires - Whether proposed expenditure properly referable to year in respect of which levied -
Pursuant to the provisions of the
The applicants, eight London borough councils, sought judicial review of the G.L.C.'s decisions on the grounds (a) that they had been made without any power to do so and were accordingly unlawful; (b) that they had been made in breach of the G.L.C.'s duty under, inter alia, section 11 of the Act of 1984 to consult with the borough councils before making them.
Macpherson J. dismissed the application, but the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicants.
On appeal by the G.L.C.:—
Held, (1) dismissing the appeal in respect of the proposed grant to the I.L.E.A., that the G.L.C., as a statutory body had had no power to act otherwise than as authorised by statute; that, since the Local Government Act 1985 made complete and comprehensive provision for the financing of the new I.L.E.A., only a clear express provision in the Act enabling the G.L.C., before its abolition, to make grants to the I.L.I.E.A. could have given it power to do so; that section 97(1) of the Act of 1985, relied on by the G.L.C., could not be construed as giving it such a power, whether read on its own or in conjunction with section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972; and that, accordingly, the decision in respect of the proposed grant to the I.L.E.A. had been ultra vires and unlawful (post, pp. 813E–F, G, 814E–F, 815A–B, 823H, 833F–G, 834B–D).
(2) Dismissing the appeal in respect of the proposed grants to the voluntary organisations and the Roundhouse Trust (Lord Bridge of Harwich dissenting), that in principle local government finance was conducted on an annual basis; that the general rate fund was levied annually to meet the local authority's authorised and budgeted expenditure for the year in respect of which it was levied, and, accordingly, a local authority had power to expend the funds precepted only to effect expenditure properly referable to the year in question; that, none of the expenditure proposed by the G.L.C. was properly referable to the year 1985–86 in respect of which it had been levied; that, moreover (per Lord Brandon, Lord Templeman and Lord Ackner), the Act of 1985 was inconsistent with the existence of any power on the part of the G.L.C. to make provision in 1985–86 for forward funding of the administrative expenses of voluntary organisations in 1986–87; and that, accordingly, the “forward funding” of the voluntary organisations and the Roundhouse Trust had been ultra vires the G.L.C. and unlawful (post, pp. 823H, 824A, 829A–B, D–F, 830B–D, 831F–H, 833B–F, H–834B, 835E–G, 841E–F, 842D–H).
Per Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. The test of whether any given expenditure can properly be included in the budget for the year in respect of which a rate is to be levied is whether it is necessary to or consequent upon the exercise or carrying out during the year in question of the authority's powers and functions (post, p. 842B).
The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation[
Attorney-General v. Smethwick Corporation[
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service[
Manchester City Council v. Greater Manchester County Council(
Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Shaw[
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Ealing London Borough Council v. Race Relations Board[
O'Reilly v. Mackman[
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal.
By notice of motion dated 13 February 1986, the applicants, the Westminster City Council, the Kingston-upon-Thames Royal London Borough Council, the Sutton London Borough Council, the Redbridge London Borough Council, the Harrow London Borough Council, the Havering London Borough Council and the Bromley London Borough Council, sought judicial review of (1) a decision of 10 February 1986 by a joint meeting of the policy and resources committee and the finance and general purposes committee of the respondents, the Greater London Council (“G.L.C.), that the G.L.C. be recommended to release £25000000 to be drawn from the budgetary resources special fund to establish a voluntary sector emergency fund for appropriate voluntary and community organisations that did not receive funding through post-abolition arrangements; (2) a decision of 10 February 1986 by a joint meeting of those committees that a sum of £15000000 be allocated to the revenue reserve for the development of the arts and recreation programme and that further detailed reports be called for seeking the appropriate approval of the necessary expenditure and the necessary individual drawings on the revenue reserve for developments; (3) a decision of 10 February 1986 by a joint meeting of those committees that the G.L.C. be recommended to make an allocation of resources in respect of which requests from the Inner London Interim Education Authority (“I.L.I.E.A.”) for financial assistance might be considered within a limit of £40000000; (4) a decision of 10 February 1986 by a joint meeting of those committees that the G.L.C. be recommended to make an allocation of £16000000 to the housing committee's revenue reserve as a contribution to the programme of repair to transferred housing; (5) a decision of the G.L.C.'s policy and revenues committee of 10 February 1986 to make the following grants to the London Community Transport Association (“L.C.T.A.”) in 1985–1986 for the following purposes: (a) a grant of £763623 to enable L.C.T.A. to carry out its purposes (i) in making specified payments to voluntary organisations to enable those organisations to meet specified costs of the provision by them of community transport for groups of the elderly and people with disabilities in Greater London in the period 1 April 1986–31 March 1987 and (ii) in carrying out community transport activities; (b) a grant of £57679 for purposes relating to I.C.T.A.'s costs in relation to (a)(i); (6) a decision of 11 February 1986 of the G.L.C. (a) to agree an allocation of £40000000 by way of establishing a central reserve for new revenue developments in respect of the I.L.I.E.A. noting that that adjusted the “best estimate” of outturn balances from £28000000 to £218000000; (b) to agree an allocation of £25000000 by way of establishing a central reserve for new revenue developments in respect of the emergency funding for voluntary organisations, noting that that adjusted the “best estimate” of outturn balances from £218000000 to £172000000; (c) to agree an allocation of £16000000 by way of an increase to the housing programme revenue reserve for their developments in respect of housing repairs, noting that that adjusted the “best estimate” of outturn balances from £172000000 to £143000000; (d) to agree an allocation of £15000000 by way of an increase to the arts and recreation programme revenue reserve for new developments, noting that that adjusted the “best estimate” of outturn balances from £143000000 to £116000000.
The relief sought was an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
- Barnwell v Attorney-General and Another
-
Fire Brigades Union v HM Treasury
... ... inquiry ( Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, 1065B ) and/or take into account relevant information before making the 2021 ... confidence in which circumstances a duty of consultation was to be cast upon them ( Westminster City Council v Greater London Council [1986] 2 All ER 278 at 288, [1986] AC 668 at 692 per ... ...
-
The King (on the Application of HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...could tell with any confidence in which circumstances a duty of consultation was to be cast upon them ( In Re Westminster City Council [1986] AC 668, HL, at 692, per Lord Bridge). (10) A legitimate expectation may be created by an express representation that there will be consultation ( R (......
-
R (Hillingdon London Borough Council) v Lord Chancellor
... ... Between The Queen On The Application Of Claimants (1)London Borough Of Hillingdon (2)Leeds City Council (3)Liverpool City Council (4)Norfolk County Council and (1) The Lord Chancellor Defendants (2) ... I have in mind decisions such as Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1986] 1 AC 240 , In re Westminster City Council [1986] 1 AC 668 , R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 1139 and R (Bhatt Murphy & ... ...