Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons for disagreeing with the inspector's recommendation not to confirm the CPO, particularly regarding the adequacy of guarantees and safeguards for existing traders. This failure to comply with the duty to give reasons substantially prejudiced the traders, justifying the quashing of the decision.

Parties
Appellants: James Joseph Horada (on behalf of the Shepherd's Bush Market Tenants' Association) & Others; Respondents: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Duty to Give Reasons, Compulsory Purchase Orders, Planning Conditions, Section 106 Agreements, Human Rights (echr)
Administrative Law Planning Law Compulsory Purchase Duty to Give Reasons Compulsory Purchase Orders Planning Conditions Section 106 Agreements Human Rights (echr)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Joseph Horada (on behalf of the Shepherd's Bush Market Tenants' Association) & Others

Appellants

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with the inspector's recommendation not to confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)
  2. 2 Whether the failure to give adequate reasons substantially prejudiced the interests of the affected parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons for disagreeing with the inspector's recommendation not to confirm the CPO, particularly regarding the adequacy of guarantees and safeguards for existing traders. This failure to comply with the duty to give reasons substantially prejudiced the traders, justifying the quashing of the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The question of the appropriate form of relief to be decided later.