Peart v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & the Regions

Peart v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & the Regions

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to conclude, based on the applicant's past inactivity, that compulsory purchase was necessary to meet immediate housing need; Article 8 ECHR does not protect investment for retirement in this context; proportionality was properly considered under Article 1 of the First Protocol.

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
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase, European Convention on Human Rights, Proportionality, Article 8, Article 1 of First Protocol, Acquisition of Land Act 1981
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Property Law Compulsory Purchase European Convention on Human Rights Proportionality Article 8 Article 1 of First Protocol +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 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

Judicial Review / 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 the compulsory purchase order
  2. 2 Whether the compulsory purchase order contravened the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State properly carried out a proportionality balancing exercise

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to conclude, based on the applicant's past inactivity, that compulsory purchase was necessary to meet immediate housing need; Article 8 ECHR does not protect investment for retirement in this context; proportionality was properly considered under Article 1 of the First Protocol.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.