Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Worldwide Marketing Solutions Ltd & Anor

Section 222(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 confers a wide power on a local authority to bring proceedings where it considers them expedient to promote or protect the interests of inhabitants of its area. The power is not confined to unlawful activity occurring within the area or directly affecting its inhabitants. It may extend to proceedings against a trader who has left the area, particularly where the authority has investigated the trader, obtained and relied upon an undertaking, and has continuing concerns about future local effects. An injunction under regulation 18 of the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 may be granted on terms extending beyond the authority’s area where necessary to secure compliance.

The Council, a local weights and measures authority, sought final injunctive relief against a telesales company and its sole director for misleading advertising contrary to regulation 3(1) of the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008. The defendants accepted the underlying breaches and that an injunction could be granted by an appropriate enforcement authority. They argued that the Council lacked power because the company had moved its business from Oldham to Manchester before proceedings began and the Council had no delegated authority under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

The issues were whether section 222(1) empowered the Council to commence proceedings after the relocation, and, if so, whether the injunction should be geographically limited.

1. The preliminary objection was rejected. The Council was entitled to bring the proceedings and was entitled to injunctive relief against both defendants.
2. Section 222(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 is expressed in extremely wide terms. It does not restrict the relevant interests to matters occurring within the authority’s area or directly affecting its inhabitants. The question is whether the authority considered proceedings expedient for promoting or protecting those interests.
3. The Council could properly consider that enforcement of an undertaking given by a trader was in the interests of local inhabitants, even after the trader had moved away. Allowing such undertakings to be breached with impunity could undermine their force and increase enforcement costs. The timing and short distance of the relocation, the director’s continuing Oldham connections, the possibility of the business’s return, and the likelihood of sales to Oldham businesses provided further grounds for the Council’s conclusion.
4. Brighton and Hove City Council v Woolworths plc [2002] EWHC 2565 (Admin) did not justify confining the power under section 222(1). The approach in R (on the application of Donnachie) v Cardiff Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 489 (Admin) confirmed the width of the power, and local activity was not a necessary condition.
5. Under regulation 18 of the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, the injunction could be framed on terms considered appropriate to secure compliance. Since the company traded nationally and had breached a geographically unrestricted undertaking, an injunction extending throughout England and Wales was appropriate. The proposed extension to the European Economic Area was not pursued.
6. The parties were invited to agree the terms of the order and submit a draft. Further argument would be heard if necessary.