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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll