Greater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd

A request under section 25 of the Police Act 1996 must correspond to the special police services supplied, although the police retain operational control over the precise level of deployment. A request for some policing does not justify charging for a materially higher level which the recipient expressly rejected.

Nor may the police ordinarily recover the cost of unwanted additional services in restitution where the recipient could reject them only by abandoning the activity for which the requested services were essential. In those circumstances, the additional benefit may be unproved, the services are not freely accepted, and retention of any benefit is not unjust.

The Chief Constable claimed the unpaid cost of police officers deployed at a football stadium during two seasons. The Club had requested and paid for policing at the previous level but repeatedly objected to the increased number of officers and the resulting charges.

Mann J held that a request under section 25 of the Police Act 1996 could be implied and that the Chief Constable could recover in contract or restitution. The Club appealed with permission on whether there had been the necessary request and whether either cause of action was available. The central issues were whether the request matched the services supplied and whether the unwanted additional deployment produced an unjust enrichment.

1. Appeal allowed by a majority. The Chancellor, with whom Smith LJ agreed, held that the Club had not requested the additional special police services and that their cost was not recoverable in restitution. Maurice Kay LJ agreed that the contractual claim failed but would have upheld recovery in restitution.

2. A request under section 25 of the Police Act 1996 must match the special police services supplied. Exact correspondence is unnecessary because the Chief Constable determines operational deployment. Thus a person requesting policing for a private event cannot avoid payment merely because the request did not specify the precise number of officers. Conversely, the police cannot charge for materially different services which were not requested. The approach in West Yorkshire Police Authority v Reading Festival Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 2005 required that conclusion.

3. The Club had consistently objected to the increased manpower, not merely to the resulting price. Its request for policing at the former level could not support an implied request for the additional officers. The absence of the statutory request defeated the contractual claim. Section 25 did not itself create a cause of action.

4. The restitutionary claim also failed. The evidence did not establish that the additional officers conferred an additional benefit beyond that supplied by the lower deployment. Nor had the Club freely accepted the extra services: it could not reject them separately and could avoid them only by rejecting all policing and ceasing to play home matches. Even if the deployment produced a benefit, the Club's repeatedly stated objections and its all-or-nothing choice meant that retaining it without payment was not unjust.

5. Smith LJ added that the police had not told the Club that requesting the lower deployment would breach the safety certificate. The Club had not caused the police's mistaken belief that the higher deployment had been impliedly requested and should not bear the cost of that mistake.

6. The parties were invited to agree the form of order and its monetary consequences.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By a majority, allowed the Club's appeal and rejected recovery in both contract and restitution: [2008] EWCA Civ 1449.
2. High Court, Chancery Division: Mann J found that the additional special police services had been impliedly requested and held that their cost was recoverable in contract or restitution. No neutral or report citation is stated.