Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC: Difference between revisions

Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (view source)

13 bytes removed , 2 November 2023

no edit summary

83,262

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|rep|
+{{a|casenote|{{image|Dramatic Chipmunk|png|Did someone say “[[ultra vires|ULTRA FREAKING VIRES]]”??!}}}}Cue lightning, a peal of thunder, a blood-curdling scream and pallid faces at the very mention of its name. {{cite|Hazell|Hammersmith and Fulham LBC|1992|2AC|1}} declared that, under the Local Authorities Act 1972, [[local authority|local authorities]] had no power to engage in interest rate swap agreements because they were beyond the Council’s borrowing powers, and that all the contracts were [[void]].
-[[File:Dramatic Chipmunk.png|thumb|center|Did someone say “[[ultra vires|ULTRA FREAKING VIRES]]”??!]]
-}}{{cn}}Cue lightning, a peal of thunder, a blood-curdling scream and pallid faces at the very mention of its name. {{cite|Hazell|Hammersmith and Fulham LBC|1992|2AC|1}} declared that, under the Local Authorities Act 1972, [[local authority|local authorities]] had no power to engage in interest rate swap agreements because they were beyond the Council's borrowing powers, and that all the contracts were [[void]].
 Under the Local Authorities Act 1972, the local authorities had power to borrow and certain local authorities entered [[swap]] transactions to [[hedge]] their exposure to fluctuations in interest rates on these loans. A leading commercial silk had advised that a rate swap undertaken as part of the proper management of the council’s fund would be [[intra vires]].