Glamorgan CC v Glasbrook Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 3 (19 December 1924)

During a coal strike, colliery owners requested police be billeted at their premises to protect safety men working the pumps. The police superintendent believed a mobile force would suffice but agreed to provide a garrison upon the owners signing a requisition promising payment. The House of Lords held that where police provide services beyond their strict obligations at a party's specific request, payment can lawfully be charged.

Facts

During the national coal strike of 1921, workers at the appellants’ collieries in Glamorganshire refused to resume work and pressured ‘safety men’ (who operated pumps preventing mine flooding) to cease work. The safety men stopped working on 9th July 1921, stating they lacked sufficient police protection. Mr James, the colliery agent, requested Police Superintendent Colonel Smith provide a police garrison billeted at the collieries. Colonel Smith believed his mobile police force could adequately protect the premises but acceded to Mr James’ request on condition that a requisition for ‘special services’ be signed promising payment. The garrison of 70 police was provided, the safety men returned to work, and the mines were preserved until the strike ended on 26th August 1921.

Issues

Was there consideration for the promise to pay?

The appellants argued that police protection was their legal right and therefore no consideration existed for their promise to pay.

Was the agreement contrary to public policy?

The appellants contended that charging for police services that the public already pays for through rates and taxes was against public policy.

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a majority (Lord Chancellor, Viscount Finlay, and Lord Shaw; Lords Carson and Blanesburgh dissenting), dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment for the respondents.

The majority held that while police have an absolute duty to take necessary steps for keeping the peace and protecting property from criminal injury, they may lawfully provide ‘special services’ beyond their strict obligations in return for payment. The Lord Chancellor stated:

“No doubt there is an absolute and unconditional obligation binding the police authorities to take all steps which appear to them to be necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime, or for protecting property from criminal injury; and the public, who pay for this protection through the rates and taxes, cannot lawfully be called upon to make a further payment for that which is their right.”

However, he continued that where services of a special kind not within the obligations of police authority are requested, the police may lend constables in consideration of payment. The trial judge had accepted Colonel Smith’s evidence that the garrison was not necessary for adequate protection but was provided at Mr James’ specific request.

The dissenting Lords Carson and Blanesburgh considered that on the facts, the garrison was essential and necessary police protection, being the only means by which the safety men would return to work, and therefore could not be charged for.

Implications

This case established the important principle distinguishing between ordinary police duties (which cannot be charged for) and ‘special services’ (which may be provided for payment). Police authorities may charge for services rendered at an individual’s specific request which go beyond what the police consider necessary for adequate protection. The decision recognised the long-standing practice of police authorities providing paid special services and affirmed that such arrangements are lawful provided they do not interfere with the discharge of ordinary police duties elsewhere.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The appellants were bound by their agreement to pay for the special police services provided at their request.

Source: Glamorgan CC v Glasbrook Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 3 (19 December 1924)