Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council: CA 26 Jul 2011

Carnwath LJ considered the effect of Bugajny and other cases after Sporrong: ‘ Later cases (see eg Bugajny v Poland (Application No 22531/05) (unreported) given 6 November 2007, para 56 and following) have given further guidance on the practical application of article 1 to individual cases. First, the three rules are not ‘distinct in the sense of being unconnected’; the second and third rules are to be ‘construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule’. Secondly, although not spelt out in the wording of the article, claims under any of the three rules need to be examined under four heads:
(i) whether there was an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of ‘possessions’;
(ii) whether the interference was ‘in the general interest’;
(iii) whether the interference was ‘provided for by law’; and
(iv) proportionality of the interference.
. . The cases show that the issue of proportionality can be expanded into the following question:
‘whether the interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions struck the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the public and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, or whether it imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on them.’ (Bugajny v Poland 6 November 2007, para 67).’

Judges:

Mummery, Carnwath, Hedley LJJ

Citations:

[2012] 2 WLR 624, [2011] EWCA Civ 862, [2012] PTSR 441, [2012] JPL 25, [2012] QB 512, [2012] HLR 1, [2011] RVR 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council UTLC 29-Jul-2010
UTLC COMPENSATION–whether the 3 year time limit provided by section 19(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for making a claim for compensation in respect of depreciation in value of interest in land caused by . .

Cited by:

CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442185