- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bromley LBC v Greater London Council
Factual and Procedural Background
Following local elections in The City, Company A resolved to fund a 25 percent reduction in public transport fares operated by Company B. To meet the anticipated shortfall, Company A issued a supplementary precept requiring all boroughs, including the Respondent, to levy an additional rate of 6.1 pence in the pound for the period 1 October 1981 – 31 March 1982.
The Respondent applied for judicial review. The Divisional Court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal quashed the precept as ultra vires. Company A and Company B appealed to the House of Lords, where the matter came before Judge Wilberforce, Judge Diplock, Judge Keith, Judge Scarman and Judge Brandon.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the supplementary precept and related fare-reduction policy were beyond the statutory powers conferred by the Transport (London) Act 1969.
- If within power, whether the decision to implement the policy was an unlawful exercise of discretion under the Wednesbury principle.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (Company A & Company B)
- The Transport (London) Act 1969 grants Company A a broad discretion to balance funding between fares and rate-supported grants.
- Section 3 expressly allows grants “for any purpose,” permitting revenue subsidies calculated in advance.
- The phrase “economic transport” in section 1 refers to cost-effectiveness, not a break-even obligation; therefore deliberate deficits are permissible social policy.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Act, read as a whole, requires passenger services to be run on ordinary business principles; avoidable deficits financed by rates are unlawful.
- Sections 7(3) and 7(6) impose a duty on Company B to balance revenue and prohibit Company A from approving fare levels that ignore that duty.
- Company A breached its fiduciary duty to ratepayers by doubling their burden after central-government grant loss became clear.
- Even if power existed, the decision was irrational because councillors treated an election manifesto as an irrevocable mandate, disregarding material financial consequences.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Secretary of State for Education v. Tameside B.C. [1977] AC 1014 | Elected body cannot validate unlawful action by electoral mandate. | Cited to reject the argument that electoral approval could legitimise an ultra vires decision. |
| Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation [1955] Ch 210 | Local transport undertakings must follow ordinary business principles; fiduciary duty to ratepayers. | Treated as continuing authority, reinforcing the requirement to avoid avoidable deficits. |
| Roberts v. Hopwood [1925] AC 578 | Local authorities must balance public benefit with ratepayers’ interests. | Used to emphasise fiduciary obligations. |
| Luby v. Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation [1964] 2 QB 64 | Fair balancing of competing duties. | Supported the need to weigh users’ interests against those of ratepayers. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 | Standard of unreasonableness in discretionary decisions. | Framework for assessing whether the fare decision was irrational. |
| Newbury D.C. v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 | Further affirmation of Wednesbury limits. | Referenced in evaluating discretionary misuse. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House held that both grounds advanced by the Respondent succeeded.
- Statutory construction: Sections 7(3) and 7(6) create an interlocking scheme requiring Company B to avoid deficits “so far as practicable” and obliging Company A to facilitate that aim. “Consolidated revenue” was read as self-generated income, not including discretionary grants. Accordingly, the Act permits grants only to meet unavoidable deficits, not to fund deliberate fare reductions.
- Fiduciary duty: Even if statutory power existed, Company A acted in breach of its fiduciary duty by almost doubling the rates burden after a known withdrawal of central funding.
- Discretionary misuse: Councillors treated their election manifesto as an irrevocable commitment and thus fettered their discretion; moreover, imposing the entire additional cost on ratepayers while conferring the benefit on passengers was held to be “thriftless.”
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEALS DISMISSED; ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.
Immediate Effect: The supplementary precept was quashed and Company A was ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs.
Broader Implications: The decision re-asserts strict limits on local-authority financing of transport policy, confirms that electoral mandates cannot justify ultra vires action, and reinforces the fiduciary duty owed to ratepayers. No new legal test was formulated, but the House clarified the financial duties under the Transport (London) Act 1969 and reaffirmed the continuing vitality of the Wednesbury principle.
Alert