Turner v First Secretary of State & Anor [2007] EWHC 2008 (Admin) (14 August 2007)

Turner v First Secretary of State & Anor [2007] EWHC 2008 (Admin) (14 August 2007)

There was no error of law or procedure by the Secretary of State in confirming the compulsory purchase order. The Inspector's findings that the property was uninhabitable, that the claimant had failed to make it habitable, and that the Council's actions were justified were reasonable and supported by evidence. The interference with the claimant's rights under the ECHR was proportionate and justified. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2008 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Alan Turner; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Rushmoor Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment in the High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Order, Acquisition of Land, Housing Act 1985, Judicial Review, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Costs
Administrative Law Property Law Human Rights Compulsory Purchase Order Acquisition of Land Housing Act 1985 Judicial Review Article 1 Protocol 1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Alan Turner

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Rushmoor Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment in the High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order was lawful under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 and section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State or Inspector erred in law or procedure
  3. 3 Whether the compulsory purchase order breached the claimant's rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 or Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law or procedure by the Secretary of State in confirming the compulsory purchase order. The Inspector's findings that the property was uninhabitable, that the claimant had failed to make it habitable, and that the Council's actions were justified were reasonable and supported by evidence. The interference with the claimant's rights under the ECHR was proportionate and justified. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Order for costs in favour of the Treasury Solicitor in the sum of £6,000 plus VAT to be paid by the claimant