Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] UKHL 6
Citation:Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] UKHL 6
Rule of thumb:Can a person be refused a Government license or lease because the Government finds their political views distasteful? No, the Government cannot stop a person from obtaining a license & trading because they disagree with their political views.
Background facts:
The basic facts of this case were that Wheeler owned and ran a rugby club in Leicester, which required Wheeler to obtain licensing/planning from Leicester to use the stadium. Wheeler organised for the rugby team to go on a tour of South Africa, having been warned before doing so that Leicester City Council opposed South Africa’s apartheid legal system which they believed to be in serious violation of discrimination. Leicester City suspended the rugby club’s use of the rugby stadium for 12 months.
Parties argued:
Wheeler the owner argued that this breached administrative law. The Council tried to argue that under the Race Relations Act 1976 this was unlawful behaviour by the rugby team.
Judgment:
The Court held that the Race Relations Act did not have a bearing on the Council’s duties to make licensing and planning decisions, and that these Acts had to be looked at in themselves, and that the Council did not have the right to apply random Acts like the Race Relations Act to planning/licensing laws. The decision to suspend the rugby club was held by the Court to be in breach of administrative law. This confirmed that the purpose of the law is important in administrative law and statutes must accord with the purpose which they are introduced for – the purpose of the Race Relations Act did not state that it was to be used to decide planning applications.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘The Government had subscribed to the Gleneagles agreement but did not take steps to ban the tour (a rugby tour of South Africa which the rugby club in question took part in), leaving the decision to each individual invited to take part. The club does not practice racial discrimination, does not support apartheid, has not been guilty of any infringement of the Race Relations Act 1976, did not support the decision of the three members to join the tour and sought to discourage them from joining the tour by sending them copies of the reasoned memorandum published by the opponents of the tour. The council does not contend that the club should have threatened or punished the three club members who participated in the tour or that the club could properly have done so. Nevertheless, the club has been punished by the council according Mr. Soulsby for "failing to condemn the tour and to discourage its members from playing." ... My Lords, the laws of this country are not like the laws of Nazi Germany. A private individual or a private organisation cannot be obliged to display zeal in the pursuit of an object sought by a public authority and cannot be obliged to publish views dictated by a public authority. The club having committed no wrong, the council could not use their statutory powers in the management of their property or any other statutory powers in order to punish the club. There is no doubt that the council intended to punish and have punished the club. When the club were presented by the council with four questions it was made clear that the club's response would only be acceptable if, in effect, all four questions were answered in the affirmative. When the club committee made their dignified and responsible response to these questions, a response which the council find unsatisfactory to the council, the council commissioned a report on possible sanctions that might be taken against the club. That report suggested that delaying tactics could be used to hold up the grant of a lease then being negotiated by the club. It suggested that land could be excluded from the new lease as it was "thought that this could embarrass the club because it had apparently granted sub-leases ..." It was suggested that the council's consent, which had already been given for advertisements by the club's sponsors, could be withdrawn although according to the report "the actual effect of this measure on the club is difficult to assess." It was suggested that "a further course is to insist upon strict observance of the tenant's covenants in the lease. However, the City Estate's Surveyor, having inspected the premises, is of the opinion that the tenant's convenants are all being complied with." Finally, it was suggested that "the council could terminate the club's use of the recreation ground." This might cause some financial loss to the council and might "form the basis of a legal challenge to the council's decision. The club may contend that the council has taken an unreasonable action against the club in response to personal decisions of members of its team over which it had no control." Notwithstanding this warning the council accepted the last suggestion and terminated the club's use of the recreation ground. In my opinion, this use by the council of its statutory powers was a misuse of power. The council could not properly seek to use its statutory powers of management or any other statutory powers for the purposes of punishing the club when the club had done no wrong. Page 8-9’, Lord Templeman
'Finally, it was suggested that "the council could terminate the club's use of the recreation ground." This might cause some financial loss to the council and might "form the basis of a legal challenge to the council's decision. The club may contend that the council has taken an unreasonable action against the club in response to personal decisions of members of its team over which it had no control." Notwithstanding this warning the council accepted the last suggestion and terminated the club's use of the recreation ground. In my opinion, this use by the council of its statutory powers was a misuse of power. The council could not properly seek to use its statutory powers of management or any other statutory powers for the purposes of punishing the club when the club had done no wrong’, Lord Templeman
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.