Charlesworth, R (on the application of) v Crossrail Ltd & Anor
The Defendant lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of the land. B55 was correctly treated as a holder of a Qualifying Interest because its freehold was acquired under threat of compulsory purchase powers. The Claimant's loss of opportunity resulted from competing bids, not unlawful conduct or misapplication of the policy.
- Parties
- Claimant: Daniel Charlesworth; Defendant: Crossrail Limited; Interested Party: Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Acquisition, Land Disposal Policy, Crichel Down Rules, Qualifying Interest, Judicial Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Charlesworth
Claimant
Crossrail Limited
Defendant
Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of land acquired for Crossrail
- 2 Whether Berkeley Fifty-Five Limited was correctly treated as a holder of a Qualifying Interest under the C10 Policy
- 3 Whether the Claimant was deprived of rights as a dispossessed property owner
Ratio Decidendi
The Defendant lawfully applied the C10 Policy to the disposal of the land. B55 was correctly treated as a holder of a Qualifying Interest because its freehold was acquired under threat of compulsory purchase powers. The Claimant's loss of opportunity resulted from competing bids, not unlawful conduct or misapplication of the policy.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment