Sole v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Ors

Sole v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Ors

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly understood the nature and effect of the Grampian condition and were entitled to conclude that there was no need to make the CPO conditional on a relocation strategy, as an effective relocation process was 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 project. Both grounds of challenge failed.

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 / Statutory Challenge / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Law, Relocation of Residents
Compulsory Purchase Administrative Law Human Rights Compulsory Purchase Orders Proportionality Article 8 ECHR Planning Law Relocation of Residents

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 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 / Statutory Challenge / Judgment After Full Hearing

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly understood the nature and effect of the Grampian condition and were entitled to conclude that there was no need to make the CPO conditional on a relocation strategy, as an effective relocation process was 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 project. Both grounds of challenge failed.

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