- Published on
Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd (1987) CA
This case centers on the question of consideration – whether the Sheffield United Football Club received something of value in exchange for their promise to pay the police. The core issue was whether the police services provided at football matches constituted "consideration" sufficient to enforce the payment agreement.
I. Key Issue: Did the police provide "consideration" for the Club's promise to pay for their services at football matches?
II. Facts:
IV. Reasoning (applying the principles established in Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan County Council):
The court determined that the police services provided at the football matches constituted special police services, going beyond the general duty of maintaining law and order. Four key factors supported this conclusion:
VI. Implications: This case clarifies the circumstances under which police forces can charge for their services. It's not just about the presence of police, but the nature of their deployment and whether it exceeds their general public duty.
This case centers on the question of consideration – whether the Sheffield United Football Club received something of value in exchange for their promise to pay the police. The core issue was whether the police services provided at football matches constituted "consideration" sufficient to enforce the payment agreement.
I. Key Issue: Did the police provide "consideration" for the Club's promise to pay for their services at football matches?
II. Facts:
- Sheffield United Football Club regularly paid the police for their presence at matches.
- The Club argued that the police were simply performing their general duty (maintaining law and order), thus providing no special consideration for the payment.
IV. Reasoning (applying the principles established in Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan County Council):
The court determined that the police services provided at the football matches constituted special police services, going beyond the general duty of maintaining law and order. Four key factors supported this conclusion:
- Location: Police attendance was at private premises (the football stadium). This distinguishes it from general policing on public streets.
- Immediacy of Threat: The police presence wasn't in response to actual or imminent violence. It was a proactive measure to prevent potential disorder.
- Public/Private Nature of Event: Football matches have both public (spectators) and private (club's commercial interest) aspects. The police presence catered to both.
- Resource Strain: Policing football matches placed a significant burden on police resources, justifying a special charge.
VI. Implications: This case clarifies the circumstances under which police forces can charge for their services. It's not just about the presence of police, but the nature of their deployment and whether it exceeds their general public duty.
0 Comments