Djanogly v Westminster City Council

Djanogly v Westminster City Council

The Council's charging provisions in the 2010 Order were intra vires because they were justified by evidence of increased demand for motorcycle parking and the rational objective of fairness between vehicle types. The Council's financial estimates were reasonable and not so flawed as to vitiate the Order. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Warren Djanogly; Respondent: Westminster City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Challenge / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on consultation ground refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Powers of Local Authorities, Parking Charges, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Local Government Law Transport Law Statutory Powers of Local Authorities Parking Charges Judicial Review Ultra Vires Consultation Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warren Djanogly

Appellant

Westminster City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/statutory Challenge / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging provisions in the City of Westminster (Motorcycle Parking Places) (No.1) Order 2010 were ultra vires under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the Council's objectives in imposing charges were legitimate traffic management benefits under section 122 of the 1984 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Council's financial projections and consultation process vitiated the Order

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's charging provisions in the 2010 Order were intra vires because they were justified by evidence of increased demand for motorcycle parking and the rational objective of fairness between vehicle types. The Council's financial estimates were reasonable and not so flawed as to vitiate the Order. The consultation process was adequate and objections were properly considered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on consultation ground refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal on the consultation ground is refused.