Kuznetsov & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Kuznetsov & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The court held that although there were some procedural breaches (including failure to publish notice for two consecutive weeks as required by s.11 of the 1981 Act and late service of the statement of case), the claimants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice as required by s.24(2) of the Act. The inquiry was conducted fairly, there was no actual or apparent bias, and the inspector and Secretary of State lawfully addressed the issues of viability, affordable housing, alternatives, and the application of s.19. The claims under s.23 and the judicial review were therefore dismissed.

Parties
First Claimant: Alexander Kuznetsov; Second Claimant: Braginzuk LLC; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review and Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Bias, Compulsory Purchase Orders, Judicial Review, Notice Requirements, Affordable Housing Policy, Alternatives to Compulsory Purchase
Administrative Law Compulsory Purchase Planning Law Procedural Fairness Bias Compulsory Purchase Orders Judicial Review Notice Requirements +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Kuznetsov

First Claimant

Braginzuk LLC

Second Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review and Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural irregularities in the CPO process rendered the order unlawful
  2. 2 Whether there was actual or apparent bias by the inspector or decision maker
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of s.11 and s.12 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 were breached and, if so, whether substantial prejudice resulted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although there were some procedural breaches (including failure to publish notice for two consecutive weeks as required by s.11 of the 1981 Act and late service of the statement of case), the claimants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice as required by s.24(2) of the Act. The inquiry was conducted fairly, there was no actual or apparent bias, and the inspector and Secretary of State lawfully addressed the issues of viability, affordable housing, alternatives, and the application of s.19. The claims under s.23 and the judicial review were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • First and second claimants' applications under s.23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 dismissed
  • First claimant's judicial review dismissed