header-logo header-logo

Local authority

01 August 2013
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Attfield) v London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 248 (Jul)

The defendant local authority decided to increase the charges for residents' parking permits and visitors vouchers in controlled parking zones in the borough pursuant to s 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 under which an authority had power to designate parking places on the highway, to charge for use of them and to issue parking permits for charge. The claimant, a resident of the borough, challenged the decision by way of judicial review, contending that the increase in charges was unlawful because its purpose was to generate a surplus, beyond the money needed to operate the parking scheme, to fund other transport expenditure, such as road repair and concessionary fares. The court ruled that the 1984 Act was not a taxing statute although the permit charges generated revenue for the local authority. A public body had to exercise a statutory power for the purpose for which the power had been conferred by Parliament, and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll