LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd v Richmond Upon Thames LBC (1991)
This case explores the limits of a local authority's power to charge for services under Section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. The core issue revolves around what constitutes "reasonably incidental" to the discharge of statutory functions.
I. Key Facts:
  • Section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972: Grants local authorities power to do anything "calculated to facilitate, or is conducive, or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."
  • Council's Action: The council charged for preliminary planning advice.
  • Plaintiff's Claim: The plaintiffs argued this charge was unlawful.
II. The Court's Decision (Two Grounds):
A. Violation of the Bill of Rights 1689, Article 4:
  • The Issue: The charge was considered a form of raising revenue.
  • The Ruling: Article 4 prohibits raising revenue without parliamentary grant. The court refused to imply such a power within Section 111(1). Essentially, the Act doesn't implicitly grant the power to charge for services, even if those services are related to the council's functions. This is a crucial point: the power to act doesn't automatically include the power to charge.
B. Limits of "Reasonably Incidental":
  • The Issue: Even if providing preliminary advice is "reasonably incidental" to the council's planning functions (and the court accepted this), the question was whether charging for it was also "reasonably incidental."
  • The Ruling: The court held that the charging itself wasn't "reasonably incidental." The court rejected the argument that because the advice was reasonably incidental, charging for it was automatically justified. There's a limit to how far the "reasonably incidental" principle extends. The council can't justify a charge simply because the underlying action is permitted. Charging is a separate issue that needs independent justification.
III. Key takeaway and implications:
  • Double Incidental Test Failure: The council failed because the charge was considered reasonably incidental to an action that was only reasonably incidental itself. This creates a double-layer test; the action and the charging must both independently be deemed reasonably incidental to their statutory function. This suggests a narrow interpretation of 'reasonably incidental'.
  • Strict Interpretation of Statutory Powers: The case demonstrates a strict interpretation of statutory powers granted to local authorities. The existence of a power to perform an action does not automatically grant the power to charge for it.
  • Revenue-Raising Restrictions: Local authorities must be cautious about charging for services, even if those services are connected to their statutory duties. Such charges require separate legal authorization, beyond the general powers granted under Section 111(1).
IV. Study Questions:
  1. Define "reasonably incidental" in the context of this case. Why did the court reject the council's argument that the charge was reasonably incidental?
  2. How does this case interpret Section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972?
  3. What are the practical implications of this ruling for local authorities?
  4. Explain the interaction between Section 111(1) and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
  5. Why is the "double incidental" aspect so significant in understanding the case's outcome?
This study guide provides a structured approach to understanding the complexities of McCarthy & Stone, focusing on its implications for the scope of local authority powers and the limitations of the "reasonably incidental" doctrine. Remember to consult the original case text for complete detail and nuance.



Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law