Richards & Anor v Somerset County Council

Richards & Anor v Somerset County Council

The fresh evidence produced by the applicants did not demonstrate that the tribunal's findings on the absence of an 'indication' or a scheme were perverse or affected by fraud, nor did it satisfy the test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. The principle of finality in litigation, the long passage of time, and the absence of any real prospect of success justified refusing permission to re-open the matter.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Mr and Mrs Richards; Defendant/respondent: Somerset County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (re Opening of Final Decision)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Compensation for Compulsory Purchase, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Finality of Litigation, Disclosure Obligations
Land Law Compulsory Acquisition Civil Procedure Compensation for Compulsory Purchase Fresh Evidence on Appeal Finality of Litigation Disclosure Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Richards

Claimant/applicant

Somerset County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (re Opening of Final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence justifies re-opening the refusal of permission to appeal against the Lands Tribunal's preliminary decision on compensation for compulsory acquisition.
  2. 2 Whether there was an 'indication' within the meaning of section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
  3. 3 Whether there was a scheme underlying the acquisition for the purposes of the Pointe Gourde rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence produced by the applicants did not demonstrate that the tribunal's findings on the absence of an 'indication' or a scheme were perverse or affected by fraud, nor did it satisfy the test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal. The principle of finality in litigation, the long passage of time, and the absence of any real prospect of success justified refusing permission to re-open the matter.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No re-opening of the final decision