82,891
edits
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|rep|}}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]]. | {{a|rep|}}{{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]]. | 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]]. | ||