(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) The claimant complained of the compulsory purchase of his land. He alleged that the compulsory purchase was discriminatory or illegitimate expropriation: an allegation of impropriety. He sought to base this on statements made in parliament.
Held: He was entitled to rely on the Minister’s statement to show what was the true motivation for the compulsory purchase. He was not challenging the truth of what had been stated in parliament.
Judges:
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2007] UKPC 48, [2007] 1 WLR 2825
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258323