Stepney Borough Council v Joffe

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1949
CourtKing's Bench Division
[DIVISIONAL COURT] STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL v. JOFFE SAME v. DIAMOND. SAME v. WHITE. 1949 Jan. 14. Lord Goddard C.J. and Humphreys J.

Local government - Metropolis - Street trading - Licences - Revocation by council for misconduct - Licensees “in their opinion unsuitable to hold” them - Appeals - Jurisdiction of appellate tribunal - London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947 (10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. xvi), s. 21, sub-s. 3 (a); s. 25, sub-s. 1.

By s. 21, sub-s. 3, of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947, a borough council may revoke a licence granted by it to a street trader if “(a) the …. licensee is on account of misconduct or for any other sufficient reason in their opinion unsuitable to hold such licence ….” Section 25, sub-s. 1, provides that any person aggrieved (inter alia) by the revocation by a borough council of a licence may appeal to a petty sessional court and that “on any such appeal the court may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the borough council ….”

Held, that s. 25, sub-s. 1, gives a street trader an unrestricted right to appeal against a decision under s. 21, sub-s. 3 (a); that once he appeals, the petty sessional court is bound to form an opinion of its own as to the suitability of the trader to hold a licence; and that the petty sessional court is entitled to substitute its opinion for that of the council.

CASE STATED by a metropolitan magistrate.

Three street traders, who had been granted licences by the appellant borough council under s. 21 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947F1, were convicted of selling goods at prices exceeding the maximum fixed by the relevant order made under the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. The council accordingly revoked their licences under sub-s. 3 (a) of s. 21 of the Act of 1947, being of the opinion that by reason of their convictions, they were unsuitable to hold their licences.

The three traders appealed from those decisions under s. 25, sub-s. 1, of the Act to a magistrate. The council contended, on the hearing of those appeals, (i.) that the magistrate was not entitled to substitute his opinion as to the suitability of the traders to hold licences for that of the council; (ii.) that he was not empowered to review at large the merits of the matter for the purpose of deciding whether each of the traders was suitable or not; and (iii.) that his jurisdiction was limited to considering whether or not there was any material on which the council could reasonably have arrived at their decisions to revoke the licences.

The magistrate, being of the opinion that the traders were, in fact, still suitable to hold the licences and holding that he was empowered, and bound, to consider the whole merits of the matter de novo in the case of each trader and that his jurisdiction was not limited as contended by the council, allowed the appeals, but at the request of the council stated the question for the opinion of the court whether he came to a correct determination in each case as to the extent of his powers on the hearing of an appeal against a decision of a borough council under s. 21, sub-s. 3 (a), of the Act of 1947.

Havers K.C. and Sebag Shaw for the borough council. The magistrate was not entitled to substitute his opinion for that of the council. The words “in their opinion” must have been inserted in para. (a) of sub-s. 3 of s. 21 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947, for some purpose. They do not appear in para. (b) or in any of the other paragraphs of sub-s. 3. The only appeal which can be made to a magistrate under s. 25, sub-s. 1, is on the question whether there was any evidence on which the council could form their opinion.

[HUMPHREYS J. But that is a question of law.]

Yes.

[HUMPHREYS J. It is very odd to give a magistrate power to hear an appeal on a question of law.]

Fulham Borough Council v. SantilliF2 is distinguishable from the present case. That was a case on s. 31, sub-s. 2, of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1927, which corresponds to s. 21, sub-s. 3, of the Act of 1947. Paragraph (a) of sub-s. 2 of s. 31...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Ghafoor and Others v Wakefield District Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 18 Julio 1990
    ......In R v Reading Borough Council, Ex parte EganTLR (The Times June 12, 1987) Mr Justice Nolan had expressed the view that ......
  • BA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (deprivation of citizenship: appeals)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 24 Enero 2018
    ...Families v Philliskirk [2009], ELR 68 at [19]]. Otherwise, the right of appeal would be rendered illusory [Lord Goddard CJ in Stepney Borough Council v Joffe [1949] 1 KB 599 at 602] or unduly restricted [Lord Parker CJ in Godfrey v Bournemouth Corporation [1969] 1 WLR 47 at 51]. 4.119 Howev......
  • Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: Scope)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 9 Julio 2013
    ...Families v Philliskirk [2009], ELR 68 at [19]]. Otherwise, the right of appeal would be rendered illusory [Lord Goddard CJ in Stepney Borough Council v Joffe [1949] 1 KB 599 at 602] or unduly restricted [Lord Parker CJ in Godfrey v Bournemouth Corporation [1969] 1 WLR 47 at 51]. 4.119 How......
  • Cook v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Julio 1989
    ...is a re-hearing, the magistrates are entitled to take into account the policy of the Council. As Lord Goddard C.J. said in Stepney Borough Council v. Joffe [1949] 1 K.B.599, at p.602: "If there is an unrestricted right of appeal, it is for the court of appeal to substitute its opinion for t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Appeals
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Assets of Community Value. Law and Practice Contents
    • 29 Agosto 2017
    ...in saying that there should be limited grounds on which an ‘opinion’ should be interfered with. 221 Cf Stepney Borough Council v Joffe [1949] 1 KB 599. 280 Assets of Community Value: Law and Practice other hand) the ability of the Tribunal to interfere with the opinion of the local authorit......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Assets of Community Value. Law and Practice Contents
    • 29 Agosto 2017
    ...(1982) 5 EHRR 35, ECHR 4.181 Steele v Gourley (1887) 3 TLR 772, CA; affirming (1886) 3 TLR 118 3.44 Stepney Borough Council v Joffe [1949] 1 KB 599, [1949] 1 All ER 256, 65 TLR 176, (1949) 93 SJ 119, DC 6.140 xxx Assets of Community Value: Law and Practice STO Capital Ltd v London Borough o......

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