The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts.
Held: ‘In answer to counsel’s submissions as to ‘special rules’, I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the ordinary Wednesbury/Ashbridge rules fall to be applied when the court is considering a challenge to the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the compulsory purchase order. Second, however, the Secretary of State, as counsel on his behalf accepted and submitted, must be satisfied that the compulsory purchase order is justified on its merits before he can properly confirm it. He must not exercise his powers capriciously. Given the obvious importance and value to land owners of their property rights, the abrogation of those rights in the exercise of his discretionary power to confirm a compulsory purchase order would, in the absence of what he perceived to be a sufficient justification on the merits, be a course which surely no reasonable Secretary of State would take.’
Judges:
Slade LJ, Croom-Johnson LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ
Citations:
[1989] 1 All ER 933, (1988) 57 P and CR 330
Statutes:
Highways Act 1980, Highways Act 1981
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Prest v Secretary of State for Wales CA 1982
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I regard it as a principle of our constitutional law that no citizen is to be deprived of his land by any public authority against his will, unless it is expressly authorised by Parliament and the public interest decisively so . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 1-Jul-2002
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner . .
Cited – St Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others CA 1-Dec-2004
The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where . .
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Land
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.181251