Wheeler v Leicester City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1985 |
| Year | 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Local Government - Powers - Exercise - Promotion of good race relations - Local authority's policy on apartheid - Rugby football club failing to endorse policy - Ban imposed on club's use of local authority's recreation ground - Whether valid exercise of power -
A city council, which had a policy of withholding support for and discouraging sporting links with South Africa because of that country's practice of apartheid, had over a period of several years permitted the city's leading rugby football club to use a recreation ground for matches and training. In March 1984 the English Rugby Football Union decided to send a touring team to play in South Africa, and three members of the club were selected for that team. The council put questions to the club as to whether (1) it supported the government opposition to the tour, (2) it agreed that the tour was an insult to a large proportion of the local population, (3) it would condemn the tour and press for its cancellation, and (4) it would press the players not to participate in the tour. The council indicated that only affirmative answers would be acceptable. In response, the club, which was multi-racial, stated that it condemned apartheid but recognised that there were differences of opinion over the way in which apartheid could be broken down. It further stated that the players, as amateur sportsmen, had individual choice as to when and where to play, subject only to the constraints of Rugby Football Union rules and club loyalty but it had supplied a memorandum prepared by the anti-apartheid movement to the players and asked them seriously to consider the contents before finally deciding whether to play in South Africa. The tour took place in May and June 1984 with the three club members participating. In August 1984 the council passed a resolution banning the club from using the recreation ground for 12 months. Six members of the club, acting on their own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the club, sought judicial review. The application was refused and the club members appealed. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, dismissed the appeal and held that the council was entitled, when exercising its discretionary powers concerning the recreation ground, to have regard to the need to promote good race relations as expressed in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976.F1 On appeal by the club members:—
Held, allowing the appeal, that the council had power under section 71 of the Act of 1976 to consider the best interests of race relations when exercising its statutory discretion in the management of the recreation ground, but that, in the absence of any infringement of the law or any improper conduct by the club, the resolution penalising it for its failure to support the council's policy by complying with the insistence on a public condemnation of the tour, was unreasonable and was a breach of the council's duty to act fairly; that, accordingly, the actions of the council amounted to a procedural impropriety and a misuse of its statutory powers that entitled the court to quash the decision to ban the club from using the recreation ground (post, pp. 1077E–G, 1079B–G, 1080C–G 1081B–C, H–1082A).
The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [
Congreve v. Home Office [
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [
The following additional cases were cited in argument in the House of Lords:
Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd. [
Morris v. Beardmore [
Reg. v. Miah [
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Bhajan Singh [
Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council [
The following cases are referred to in the judgments of the Court of Appeal:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [
Attorney-General v. Wiltshire United Dairies Ltd. (
Showboat Entertainment Centre Ltd. v. Owens [
Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council [
The following additional cases were cited in argument in the Court of Appeal:
Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd. [
Mitcham Common Conservators v. Cox [
Morris v. Beardmore [
Reg. v. Chief Immigration Officer, Heathrow Airport, Ex parte Salamat Bibi [
APPEAL from Forbes J.
By an application dated 13 September 1984, the applicants, Peter John Wheeler, William Henry Hare, Graham George Willars, Peter Herbert, Kevin Andrews and John Albert Allen, applied for judicial review of a decision by the respondents, Leicester City Council, on 21 August 1984, to suspend and ban the Leicester Football Club and its members from using the Welford Road Recreation Ground for 12 months. The relief sought was (1) an order of certiorari to quash that decision; (2) a declaration that that decision was void and of no effect; (3) an injunction restraining the city council from (a) implementing the decision, (b) preventing the club or its members from using the recreation ground or (c) interfering with the supply of electricity to the floodlights erected by the club on the recreation ground; and (4) damages. On 27 September 1984, Forbes J. refused the application.
By notice of appeal dated 10 October 1984, the applicants appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) the judge had erred in law in holding that upon its true construction section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 required or enabled the city council in the performance of their duties and exercise of their powers under the relevant statutes on the application by the Leicester Football Club for the exclusive use of a pitch for the purpose of a match (a) to take into account the prior refusal of the Leicester Football Club to put pressure on three of its members and the Rugby Football Union not to proceed with a proposed tour of South Africa; and (b) to refuse the application on that ground. (2) Upon the true construction of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, a local authority were obliged to regulate and monitor themselves so that they did not practise racial discrimination and were alert in the performance of their functions to the needs specified in the section, but were not either required or enabled in the exercise of their function to monitor others or to practise discrimination of the ground that in the opinion of the local authority such discrimination promoted good relations between persons of different racial groups. (3) Section 71 did not override the provisions of the relevant statutes and did not either require or enable the city council to refuse the application by the Leicester Football Club to which otherwise in the exercise of their duties they would have been bound to accede. (4) The judge ought in any event to have held that the decision of the city council to refuse to allow the Leicester Football Club to use the pitch was ultra vires and void as a decision which no reasonable authority in their position could have made or which was manifestly unreasonable or which was made for a collateral and improper purpose by reason that (i) the sole or overriding purpose of or reason for the decision was to penalise the Leicester Football Club for failing to identify itself with all the city council's views on the maintenance of sporting links with South Africa, failing to issue a public statement in exactly the terms dictated by the city council and failing to put pressure on three of its members not to participate in the Rugby Football Union's tour of South Africa; (ii) no reasonable council could have concluded in all the circumstances that penalising the Club would contribute to the elimination of unlawful racial discrimination or the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups in Leicester or (if relevant) in the United Kingdom, South Africa or the world generally, even if such matters were relevant at all.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Ackner L.J.
Gavin Lightman Q.C., John Randall and Jonathan Crystal for the club members.
Jeremy Sullivan Q.C., and David Mole for the city council.
14 March. The following judgments were handed down.
ACKNER L.J. The appellants are six members of the Leicester Football Club, an extremely well-known rugby club. The club is appealing against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia and Another
- Chong Chung Moi @ Christine Chong v The Government of the State of Sabah
-
Joanna Trafford v Blackpool Borough Council
...In R v Lewisham London Borough Council ex parte Shell UK Ltd [1988] 1 All EMPLOYER 938 and Wheeler v Leicester County Council (1985) AC 1054 decisions of the councils involved not to contract with organisations to whom they were ideologically unsympathetic, were held to be unlawful. Si......
-
R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council
...contractual terms were unlawful. In R v Lewisham London Borough Council ex parte Shell UK Limited [1988] 1 All ER 938 and Wheeler v Leicester County Council (1985) AC 10054 decisions of the Councils involved not to contract with organisations to whom they were ideologically unsympathetic, w......
-
STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
...McHugh JJ); Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, 436-8 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ). See Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 1 AC 1054, 1065 (Lord (164) Bell (n 49). (165) Ibid 559-60 [10]-[17] (McLure J). (166) Bell v Western Australia [2003] WADC 18, [38] (Commissioner G......