swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Local Government - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 45 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council v Shaw [2000] LGR 9
2000
QBD
Bell J
Local Government
Two senior and long term employees of the Council proposed voluntary early redundancy. After discussions, their contracts were varied with enhanced pay so that they would also have enhanced pensions and redundancy payments. Such enhancing agreements were not part of any long term policy of the Council, but were negotiated "one-off" at a time when the employees had already given many years of service without any expectation of the benefits conferred by the agreements. Held: the payments made by the authority to staff were ultra vires and unlawful, being merely a ruse to inflate pension and redundancy payments, and were negotiated one-off payments.
Bell J said: "The council is a statutory corporation, created by the Local Government Act 1972, and its powers to act are limited to those functions which are conferred on it, particularly in relation to this case by sections 111 and 112, so Mr Ground relied on the case of Allsop (supra) saying that the increase in salary was clearly a ruse to provide Mr Shaw with more than the Acts and regulations allowed by way of redundancy and superannuation payments on his true salary, i.e. what his salary would have been over the last years of service without the increase made for the improper purpose of providing him with terms of redundancy and early retirement which he would accept, but which were above what the statutory provisions and regulations would allow . . In my judgment all these arguments come back to the same fundamental question of whether the agreed salary increase for Mr Shaw was lawful or not. Asking (as the first issue in respect of the action against Mr Shaw asks) whether the agreement dated 4 January 1990 was "beyond the powers of the council" is just another way of asking whether it was contrary to law. In my view the authorities to which I have referred make it clear that a pay increase which is made by a statutory local authority like the council for the purpose or main purpose of enhancing an employee's redundancy or retirement benefits is unlawful and beyond the powers of the council to make and an agreement to make it is void, because it is not in reality a decision made in the exercise of the council's power to fix rates of pay, but for the extraneous or collateral purpose of increasing the employee's redundancy or retirement benefits beyond what the Acts and regulations would allow, but for the increase in pay. The fact that the pay increase can be justified and seen as reasonable in itself does not save it if its real purpose is to enhance redundancy or retirement benefits." and ,br />"In all those circumstances I have no hesitation in finding that the salary increase in Mr Shaw's salary was made entirely for the extraneous, collateral and, indeed improper purpose of increasing Mr Shaw's redundancy and pension entitlements to figures which he found acceptable, beyond the figures which the Acts and regulations would otherwise have allowed, and that it was for this reason an unlawful increase which no reasonable council could make. It was illegal and beyond the powers of the council to make and avoid."
Local Government Act 1972 111 112
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Broxtowe Borough Council ex parte Bradford [2000] IRLR 329
2000
CA
Lord Woolf
Employment, Local Government
A tennis coach wanted employment with the borough council as a coach. It made inquiries of another council and found that he had been suspected of improper conduct towards young girls. It not only refused him a job but imposed a ban upon him teaching in their public tennis courts interfering with the existing and further jobs that he had obtained providing coaching on those courts to private individuals. Held: The Court stated the principles: "Judicial Review is not concerned with technicalities in relation to the conduct of public bodies, it is concerned with ensuring justice. However, where an applicant for judicial review is denied a right to be heard which should have been granted to him, the courts should exercise considerable caution before concluding that the absence of the hearing has not resulted in any injustice. The correct approach in this situation was clearly indicated by Bingham LJ, as he then was, in R v The Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police ex parte Cotton [1990] IRLR 344. At p352, paragraph 60, Bingham LJ said: "'While cases may no doubt arise in which it can properly be held that denying the subject of a decision an adequate opportunity to put his case is not in all the circumstances unfair, I would expect these cases to be of great rarity. There are a number of reasons for this: '1. Unless the subject of the decision has had an opportunity to put his case it may not be easy to know what case he could or would have put if he had had the chance. '2. As memorably pointed out by Megarry J in John v Rees [1970] Ch 345 at p402, experience is by no means always that which happens. It is generally desirable that decision-makers should be reasonably receptive to argument, and it would therefore be unfortunate if the complainant's position became weaker as the decision-maker's mind became more closed. In considering whether the complainant's representations would have made any difference to the outcome the court may unconsciously stray from its proper province of reviewing the propriety of the decision-making process into the forbidden territory of evaluating the substantial merits of a decision. This is a field in which appearances are generally thought to matter. Where a decision-maker is under a duty to act fairly the subject of the decision may properly be said to have a right to be heard, and rights are not to be lightly denied. The decision in that case was referred to the learned judge. It is apparent from his judgment that he had the guidance indicated in that paragraph of Bingham LJ's judgment in mind when he gave his judgment. I recognise that, in relation to the matters to which I will turn, the council had a difficult task. They were under a heavy responsibility not to expose children in their locality unnecessarily to the risk of molestation. They are required to take all steps which are reasonably open to them to protect children from such conduct. However, they also have a responsibility not to use their position as a local authority to interfere with an individual's right to earn his living without proper cause and without extending to the individual concerned the basic requirements of fairness. This case involved the responsibilities of the local authority in relation to the terms on which they allow their property to be used, that property being the tennis club. Ordinarily, a property owner is entitled to decide for entirely commercial or personal reasons what he or she is to permit to take place on that property. A local authority is in a different position from a normal landowner since, in determining what use is to be made of its property, it is exercising a statutory discretion. In the exercise of that statutory discretion, it must act in accordance with proper administrative standards. Those standards include an obligation to be reasonable and fair in the actions which the council takes which could have adverse consequence on third parties."
1 Citers
Wandsworth London Borough Council v A Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1246
20 Jan 2000
CA
Buxton LJ
Education, Local Government
A was a parent of a child. The school complained of A's behaviour when visiting the school, and was refused a licence to enter the premises without being accompanied. The behaviour continued, and an injunction was obtained. Held: The order was discharged on appeal because it could not be shown that the headmaster had taken steps to obtain the parent's side of the situation before acting. There is a public interest both in securing a parent's access and in protecting the school and its teachers. Buxton LJ: "It is, however, clear that Miss A, and other parents, had some sort of licence to enter the school, by reason of its being the practice to permit them to do so." and the question was that if there was permission to enter the school as a parent, that was relevant to what procedures were immediately adopted before it could be withdrawn.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc; CA 21-Jan-2000 - Times, 11 February 2000; [2001] QB 97; [2000] EWCA Civ 7; [2000] 2 All ER 597; [2000] NPC 5; (2000) 32 HLR 481; [2000] 3 WLR 481
Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and another, ex parte H Times, 21 January 2000
21 Jan 2000
QBD
Elias J
Education, Local Government
The claimant had appealed to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. The authority had called two witnesses, as allowed and the representative also gave evidence. The claimants said that this was a breach of the rule allowing only two witnesses. Held: The rules were designed to try to achieve equality of arms between the parties. The restriction in the rules on the calling of more than two witnesses without the consent of the tribunal, did not operate to prevent the authority giving evidence through its representative advocate. This restored parity with a claimant.
Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 1995 (1995 No 3113) 29(1)
Burridge v London Borough of Harrow and others; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; [2000] UKHL 2; [2000] 1 All ER 876; [2000] 1 WLR 223
Gregory v Portsmouth City Council; HL 10-Feb-2000 - Times, 02 February 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] UKHL 3; [2000] 1 AC 419; [2000] 1 All ER 560; [2000] 1 WLR 306; [2000] BLGR 203; [2000] Po LR 3; (2000) 2 LGLR 667
Regina v Local Commissioner for Local Government for North and North East England ex parte Liverpool City Council [2000] EWCA Civ 54
24 Feb 2000
CA
Local Government
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls Times, 15 March 2000; (2000) 32 HLR 770
1 Mar 2000
CA
Laws LJ, Jonathan Parker LK, Evans LJ
Local Government, Housing, Land
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as to allow further building. He had obtained planning permission for the proposed development. When the council refused, the surviving purchaser sought judicial review of that refusal. Held: The purchaser's appeal succeeded. The council had confirmed that the property had been sold at its full market value, without any adjustment to reflect any possible development value, but then adjusted with the appropiate discount. The council now said that it had imposed the covenant in order to retain to itself any development value. It is established law that a council may act under any Act only for purposes allowed by that enabling Act. Despite its assertion, the council had not imposed the covenant with a view to assist in making the properties more affordable generally. The Act set out the elements to be considered in setting the valuation. The purpose of reserving any development value to itself was not one permitted by the Act under which it had been sold. The purpose of the Act was to permit former tenants to enjoy the full range of benefits of land ownership as were enjoyed by other land owners. What was reasonable was what would be reasonable to both parties, not just one. The council might reserve rights which properly affected its remaining estate, for example in the control of noise or other nuisance, but this was not such a purpose. The restrictive covenant was void and the council could not demand any payment for its removal.
Laws LJ considered the principle in Padfield: "The rule is not that the exercise of the power is only to be condemned if it is incapable of promoting the Act's policy, rather the question always is: what was the decision-maker's purpose in the instant case and was it calculated to promote the policy of the Act?"
Housing Act 1985 127(2) Sch6 para 5
1 Cites
1 Citers
Grogan v Greenwich London Borough Council Gazette, 02 March 2000; Times, 28 March 2000
2 Mar 2000
CA
Housing, Local Government
A youth had left care, and been given a secure tenancy. He was convicted of an offence, including one for having stolen goods at the flat. He was sentenced to six months detention, and the council applied for possession. On release he asked for the possession to be suspended, but the order was made. On appeal the order was suspended. The court had to balance the need to protect society by allowing a youth an opportunity to establish a life against the needs of the neighbourhood.
Housing Act 1985 85
Regina v Local Commissioner for Administration in the North and North East England, ex parte Liverpool City Council Times, 03 March 2000
3 Mar 2000
CA
Local Government
Councillors who were regular attenders at a football club, or who had season tickets, should declare that interest when it came to voting on a contentious planning application made by that club. Traditions of party members voting along party lines on sub-committees exercising statutory functions were capable of amounting to maladministration. The commissioner could investigate even though the complainant might have an action, if it was not reasonable to expect that person to take action in this case.
DS RL v Gloucestershire County Council and London Borough of Tower Hamlets and London Borough of Havering [2000] EWCA Civ 72; [2001] Fam 313
14 Mar 2000
CA
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey
Local Government, Negligence
The court considered and restated the criteria for liability set out in X (Minors).
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Powys County Council, Ex Parte Hambidge (No 2) Times, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
CA
Health, Benefits, Local Government, Discrimination
Where a local authority raised the care charges for facilities and services provided to disabled people charging different rates according to the benefits received, and where some benefits were received according to the level of disability, that differentiation did not amount to disability discrimination. The differences arose form the different levels of benefits paid to those asking for these services.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20 - National Health Service Community Care Act 1990
1 Cites
W v Essex County Council and Another; HL 17-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 30 March 2000; Times, 17 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 17; [2000] 2 All ER 237; [2000] 2 WLR 601; [2001] 2 AC 592; [2000] 1 FLR 657; [2000] 1 FCR 568; (2000) 53 BMLR 1; [2000] BLGR 281
Regina v London Borough of Greenwich ex parte Glen International and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 81
17 Mar 2000
CA
Local Government, Housing
Appeal against quashing of decision to reject applications for housing renovation grants.
[ Bailii ]
Plymouth City Council v C and Another Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] 1 FLR 875
21 Mar 2000
CA
Thorpe LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ
Children, Local Government
Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the period to be disregarded under the Act for any temporary placement. The court reaffirmed the simple test in Northamptonshire �should be sufficient to determine all but the most exceptional cases�. It did not give the judge some sort of discretionary exit from the plain application of the mechanism contained in sections 31 and 105�. (Swinton Thomas LJ) "It is clear, as my lord has said in his judgment, that what was intended in that passage was to leave the door open for circumstances or facts which might arise, which could properly, in the context of that decision, be regarded as exceptional. As at present, I do not find it possible myself to envisage facts which would be exceptional, although I entirely accept that it could be that such facts could arise and that it would be right for the court to leave that possibility open."
Children Act 1989 31(1) 105(6)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Glen International Ltd and Another Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 28 April 2000
29 Mar 2000
CA
Local Government, Housing
The council had issued notices requiring renovation works. The property owner applied for grants to cover such works, but the application was refused on the basis that no estimate accompanied the application. It was held that the grants were intended to be mandatory. The council had discretion to accept applications without this information, and in this case could not refuse the grant.
Housing Act 1985 189, 190 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 113
Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court and Westminster City Council ex parte Rezouali; Westminster City Council v Mendoza; Admn 31-Mar-2000 - Times, 12 April 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 318
Regina v Liverpool City Council ex parte Barry; Admn 7-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 321
Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth Times, 31 May 2000; (2000) COD 338; (2000) 164 JP 485
10 May 2000
QBD
Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed. Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: "The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith."
Later he continued "It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1) - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd Times, 10 May 2000
10 May 2000
QBD
Arbitration, Local Government, Construction
A decision of an adjudicator given under the section was not final. It was not in the nature of an arbitration and therefore an appeal against the adjudication did lie to the County Court. A court would not normally allow the same issue to be determined both by the arbitrator and a court, but an adjudication could typically be challenged itself by an arbitration, or by a court, or otherwise as by agreement.
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 - Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (1988 No 649)
Preston Borough Council v McGrath [2000] EWCA Civ 151
12 May 2000
CA
Lord Justice Morritt, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Tuckey
Local Government, Criminal Practice
The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him. Held: The document had not been given to the police under compulsion, reducing their obligations. It was possible that they might have shown it to the authority without having handed it over, In any event any privielge or complaint was now lost since the defendant had himself attached it to his pleadings.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O'Byrne; QBD 8-Jun-2000 - Gazette, 08 June 2000
Regina v Westminster City Council, Ex Parte Union of Managerial and Professional Officers and Others; QBD 13-Jun-2000 - Times, 13 June 2000
Regina v Broad District Council ex parte Barbara June Lashley [2000] EWHC Admin 358
16 Jun 2000
Admn
Munby J
Local Government
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Goodes v East Sussex County Council; HL 16-Jun-2000 - Times, 16 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 34; [2000] 3 All ER 603; [2000] 1 WLR 1356
In Re F (Minors) (Care Proceedings): Contact); FD 22-Jun-2000 - Times, 22 June 2000
Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another Times, 04 July 2000; Gazette, 06 July 2000
4 Jul 2000
ChD
Transport, Local Government
Historically, powers had been granted to the authority, as riparian owners of the port, but powers had also been given to what had since become the Port Authority. The Authority had been given power to regulate traffic in the river, and to charge for moorings. The local authority could not control the grant of such mooring rights by the Port authority, nor levy its own charges. The rights given by statute to the Port Authority over-rode the land owner's rights.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Swansea City and Council, Ex Parte Davies; QBD 7-Jul-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000
In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) Times, 18 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000; [2000] 3 FCR 721
18 Jul 2000
CA
Children, Local Government
A guardian ad litem, representing one child, was entitled to see a report, prepared by the child protection committee of the local authority, which related to the death of the child's sibling. Such a report constituted a report prepared by the authority whilst exercising a statutory function assigned to it. No question of policy could limit the obligation to disclose such a report. The child had an overwhelming interest on the report. Questions about the disclosure of particularly sensitive material were issues of practice not principle. Section 42 should be given its literal meaning.
Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 - Children Act 1989 42(1)(b)
1 Citers
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council; HL 28-Jul-2000 - Times, 28 July 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 47; [2001] 2 AC 619; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504; (2000) 150 NLJ 1198
Deadman v Southwark London Borough Council; CA 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 19 October 2000
Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha; CA 7-Sep-2000 - Gazette, 07 September 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 2539; [2000] EWCA Civ 201; Times, 18 July 2000
Regina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex Parte Stennett; etc; CA 28-Sep-2000 - Times, 15 October 1999; Times, 17 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 239
Commission v France C-16/98 [2000] EUECJ C-16/98
5 Oct 2000
ECJ
Local Government
ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Public works contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Electrification and street lighting works in the departement of the Vendee - Definition of work.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Grubb v Pricewaterhousecoopers and Another Times, 17 October 2000
17 Oct 2000
QBD
Local Government
Where a local authority directly paid accommodation and subsistence expenses incurred by councillors in attending conferences in the course of their duties, the expenses were not limited by the Act in the way they would be if the councillors had had to claim them back themselves. There was on overriding provision limiting all such payments.
Local Government Act 1974 111(1)
Regina (Structadene Limited) v Hackney London Borough Council; Admn 19-Oct-2000 - Times, 28 November 2000; Gazette, 05 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 405
Regina on Application of Dinev and Others v Westminster City Council; Admn 24-Oct-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 407
Regina v Bolsover District Council, ex parte Pepper; QBD 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000
Regina v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Beaumont and others Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
QBD
Local Government, Education
Local councillors who sat as governors of one school should not have voted on a motion regarding the closure of a neighbouring school. They had a clear, if indirect, financial interest in the issue and should have declared the interest and declined to vote. Membership of a school governors council was not listed in the Code of Practice, but the Code was not a complete list of interests which might be declarable.
National Code of Local Government Conduct (DoE Circular 8/90)
Phonographic Performance Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 19 December 2000; [2000] EWHC 455 (Ch); [2001] 1 WLR 400; [2001] EMLR 446; [2001] RPC 594
23 Nov 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Intellectual Property, Local Government, Charity
Local authorities ran classes in which aerobics teachers used music for lessons. No licence was obtained for the performance of the music. They claimed to be "a club, society or other organisation the main objects of which were charitable or otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare." In effect this was a claim that a local government was a charity. Held: The defence could not succeed. The functions of a local authority would not normally be considered charitable. In this context, �social welfare� was an inappropriate expression to describe such activities. Similarly the term �organisation� in the Act, in this particular phrase, was to be read ejusdem generis with the words �club� and �society�. It could not apply to a local authority. The function of a local authority is to carry out the administrative and governmental functions, in respect of its area. The legislature had thought it right to devolve those functions from national government. Those functions might include social welfare, but that was not its main purpose.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 67
[ Bailii ]
Mensah v Islington Council and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 405; [2002] CP Rep 2
1 Dec 2000
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Arden LJ
Local Government, Negligence, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
Permission was sought for a McKenzie friend to address the court. Peter Gibson LJ said: "In accordance with the overriding objective of the CPR and to avoid the waste of today's hearing, attended as this court had earlier directed, by counsel for the defendants, we took the exceptional course in this highly unsatisfactory situation of allowing Mr Alexander to speak for Mr Mensah.
But I must make it clear that this should not be taken as creating any precedent as to how those who have no right of audience can act as advocates for litigants in person. Anyone who aspires to be an advocate should obtain the requisite qualifications, and the court should be very slow to permit those who are allowed to be present in court as Mackenzie friends to act as advocates. That is not the proper function of a Mackenzie friend. The position in law was recently restated by this court in R v Bow County Court ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807. I repeat and endorse the warning given by Lord Woolf MR at page 1825 that if a person chooses to appear regularly as a Mackenzie friend and uses the litigant as a mere puppet, such behaviour could provide a firm foundation for a judge not wishing him to be present as a Mackenzie friend."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Joint Committee for Purpose of Making Appointments To Humberside Police Authority ex parte East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2000] EWHC Admin 434
19 Dec 2000
Admn
Police, Local Government
[ Bailii ]
Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; (2001) RTR 469; [2000] EWCA Civ 359
Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 357; (2001) EGCS 4; (2001) LGR 228; [2001] 33 HLR 56
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Christopher Staughton
Housing, Local Government, Nuisance
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour's aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: "there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who is not an occupier."
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
