Greater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic Afc Ltd

Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 enables, but does not itself create, a cause of action for payment for special police services. A request is nevertheless a statutory pre-condition. It may be implied where an organiser needs policing to stage an event safely and accepts the policing provided.

Services supplied on private land controlled by the organiser may be special police services even where they involve prevention, crowd control and precautionary deployment. The police may recover a reasonable sum for services actually provided, under contract, quantum meruit or, where appropriate, restitution. An unagreed charging convention cannot be imposed by the court.

The Chief Constable claimed payment from Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd for policing football matches at the JJB Stadium during the 2003–04 and 2004–05 seasons. The club had paid the sums demanded under protest, disputing both the number of officers chargeable and the inclusion of officers deployed outside the stadium.

The parties had agreed match categories and charging rates, but not the disputed staffing levels or the total sums payable. The principal issues were whether the policing constituted special police services, whether the club had requested or accepted those services, whether a contractual or restitutionary claim could succeed, and how the charges should be assessed.

1. Statutory framework. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 is enabling. It preserves the common-law ability of the police to provide and charge for special services, but does not create an independent cause of action. A request is required, but the claim may be founded in contract, quantum meruit or restitution.
2. Nature of the services. The land surrounding the stadium was private land controlled by the club on match days. It formed part of the practical arrangements for staging matches. Police deployed there for crowd control, segregation, searching, steward support, precautionary intervention and related functions could therefore be providing special police services. Location was relevant but not decisive. The question was whether the services exceeded the police’s ordinary public duty and benefited the club’s event.
3. Request. Although the club expressly disputed paying for the additional officers, its conduct showed that it needed and accepted policing at the levels considered necessary by the police. The request for special police services could accordingly be implied. The absence of a concluded agreement on price or staffing did not prevent recovery.
4. Basis and assessment of recovery. The club received an incontrovertible benefit and the police incurred the cost of providing it. A restitutionary claim was therefore available in the alternative. The police were entitled to a reasonable sum for the special police services actually provided. The court could not impose the proposed new convention. Charges had to be assessed match by match, and where officers performed both special and ordinary public duties, by fair apportionment.
5. Disposition. The Chief Constable was entitled to recover the sums properly calculated on that basis. The detailed findings concerning the sample matches were intended to enable the parties to calculate the balance due. The court stressed that future seasons should be governed by an agreed and workable charging regime.