Sole v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Ors [2007] EWHC 1527 (Admin) (30 May 2007)

Sole v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Ors [2007] EWHC 1527 (Admin) (30 May 2007)

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly understood and applied the Grampian condition, and there was an effective relocation process underway. The interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate in light of the overwhelming public interest, urgency, and benefits of the Olympic and Legacy developments. There was no basis to make the CPO conditional on a relocation strategy or to defer confirmation for the Clays Lane Estate land.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1527 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sole; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Second Defendant: London Development Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application Under Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR, Relocation Strategy, Grampian Condition, Olympic Development, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Planning Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Purchase Orders Proportionality Article 8 ECHR Relocation Strategy +3 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sole

Claimant

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

First Defendant

London Development Agency

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application Under Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State misdirected himself regarding the Grampian condition and the protection it afforded tenants seeking relocation
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's decision was a disproportionate interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly understood and applied the Grampian condition, and there was an effective relocation process underway. The interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate in light of the overwhelming public interest, urgency, and benefits of the Olympic and Legacy developments. There was no basis to make the CPO conditional on a relocation strategy or to defer confirmation for the Clays Lane Estate land.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs, subject to the usual order for a community funded applicant