Glamorgan CC v Glasbrook Bros Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

During a national coal strike that officially ended on 4 July 1921, miners employed by Company A (the Appellant) refused to resume work at three collieries in The City. “Safety men” continued operating pumps to prevent flooding, but militant picketing by striking miners soon focused on driving those safety men out.

On 7–9 July 1921, threats, demonstrations, and isolated assaults caused the safety men to abandon their posts. Manager James informed Officer Smith (Divisional Superintendent of the county police) that only a permanent police presence inside the collieries would persuade the safety men to return. Officer Smith preferred a “mobile column” strategy, but at Manager James’s insistence he agreed to billet seventy constables at the pits. Manager James signed a written “Requisition for Special Services of Police,” expressly guaranteeing payment for wages, food, and lodging in accordance with a schedule attached to the form.

The garrisoned police restored confidence; the safety men resumed work, and the mines remained undamaged until the sectional dispute ended on 26 August 1921. Afterward, the Respondent (the County Council) invoiced Company A for £2,200 11s 10d. Company A refused, contending it was entitled to protection without extra payment. The Respondent sued. Judge Bailhache entered judgment for the Respondent. A majority of the Court of Appeal (Judges Bankes and Scrutton) affirmed; Judge Atkin dissented. Company A appealed to the House of Lords.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether police authorities may charge a private party for protective services when the police already owe a public duty to protect life and property.
2. Whether the requisition signed by Company A was supported by valid consideration or was void as contrary to public policy, duress, or lack of consideration.
3. Whether the presence of a permanent police garrison constituted “special services” outside the police’s ordinary obligations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The police have an absolute statutory duty to protect persons and property; therefore any payment demand for fulfilling that duty is unlawful.
• The agreement lacked consideration because the Respondent merely undertook to do what it was already obliged to do.
• Charging for protection constitutes an improper “sale” of police discretion and is contrary to public policy.
• The requisition was signed under economic pressure amounting to duress.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Police may “lend” officers for services that exceed what the authorities deem necessary; such arrangements have a long-standing, legislatively recognised history.
• The garrison was provided only because Company A insisted on a form of protection the police themselves considered unnecessary; that extra protection is a “special service.”
• The written requisition constituted clear consideration: additional police in exchange for payment.
• Statutes such as the County Police Act 1840 and the Police Act 1890 implicitly authorise remuneration for special police services.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Five Law Lords heard the appeal. Judges Chancellor, Finlay, and Shaw formed the majority; Judges Blanesburgh and Carson dissented.

• The majority accepted Officer Smith’s testimony that ordinary police measures (a mobile column) would have afforded adequate protection. Because Company A insisted on a more extensive, resident garrison, the service supplied lay outside the force’s obligatory duties.
• Statutory history (County Police Act 1840, Police Act 1890) and long practice show that police services may be “lent” for payment when they exceed basic obligations, provided doing so does not deplete resources needed elsewhere.
• The written requisition constituted an express, voluntary promise, made without improper pressure, supported by consideration: extra protection in exchange for payment.
• Public policy is not offended where payment is sought for optional services; however, the court cautioned that such charges must be “jealously safeguarded” to prevent oppression or the appearance of selling obligatory protection.
• The dissenting judges viewed the garrison as integral to discharging the police’s duty once threats materialised, rendering any payment demand void for want of consideration.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed. The agreement to pay for the police garrison is enforceable.

Immediate effect: Company A must pay £2,200 11s 10d and bears no counter-claim. Broader implications: the House of Lords affirmed that police authorities may lawfully charge for “special services” that exceed what they deem necessary for fulfilling their core public duty, so long as such arrangements do not impair the general protection owed to the public.