Peart v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & the Regions [2003] EWCA Civ 295 (25 February 2003)

Peart v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & the Regions [2003] EWCA Civ 295 (25 February 2003)

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to conclude, based on the applicant's past inactivity, that he was unlikely to bring the property into residential use within a reasonable time; Article 8 ECHR was not engaged as the property was not the applicant's home; the proportionality exercise under Article 1 of the First Protocol was properly conducted; there was no procedural or legal error justifying intervention.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 295
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Terry Navarro Peart; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & The Regions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase, Judicial Review, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Proportionality, Acquisition of Land Act 1981
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Property Law Compulsory Purchase Judicial Review European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 ECHR Article 1 First Protocol ECHR +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Navarro Peart

Claimant/applicant

The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & The Regions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider material issues in confirming a compulsory purchase order
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality balancing exercise was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to conclude, based on the applicant's past inactivity, that he was unlikely to bring the property into residential use within a reasonable time; Article 8 ECHR was not engaged as the property was not the applicant's home; the proportionality exercise under Article 1 of the First Protocol was properly conducted; there was no procedural or legal error justifying intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application refused
  • No permission to appeal granted