Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [1992]

Facts

  • The council carried out prospective transactions with public money in an attempt to raise capital

Issue

  • Were such transactions ultra vires

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The function was not ancillary to the council’s permitted functions and so was not covered by s 111 of the Local Government Act 1972
RELATED CASE  McLeod v UK [1998]

Posted in Public Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 11th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy