Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Worldwide Marketing Solutions Limited and Kay [2014] EWHC 1910 (QB) – Regs 3(1), 13(2), 15, 16 and 18 BPMMR – s 222(1) LGA - (CRA).
- breach of undertaking – application for injunction – protection of local inhabitants.
1) wide words of s 222(1) expressed no restriction on what a local authority may properly consider expedient to promote or protect its inhabitants’ interests.
- local authority may consider activities outside its area and which do not directly affect its inhabitants.
2) fact that future legislation may permit local authority to act outside its area without restriction does not mean it cannot act now within current restrictions.
3) local authority should prove it considered s 222(1) before proceeding, but may be self-evident that s 222(1) criteria were met.”
4) scope of injunction under reg 18 MPMMR not restricted to local authority’s area.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R (Donnachie) v Cardiff Magistrates' Court & Another [2009] EWHC 489 (Admin) - Ss 101 and 222 LGA - ss 1 and 20 TDA.
1) omnia praesumuntur rite esse actum (presumption things done properly) - interests of local inhabitants in prosecuting outside authority's area may be self-evident. 2) not necessary to prove where offence (application of false trade description) committed. 3) guidance on use of s 101 rather than s 222 and on recording decision. - missing or altered evidence - test for abuse of process when video evidence obliterated.