London & Continental Stations & Property Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rail Regulator & Anor

London & Continental Stations & Property Ltd, R (on the application of) v Rail Regulator & Anor

The Regulator's compensation regime, including re-basing on 2003 revenue figures and revised methodology for walking time, was rational, within statutory discretion, and did not impose an excessive or unjustifiable burden on LCSP. The regime struck a fair balance between public interest and property rights, did not infringe Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, and was based on expert advice. The Regulator was entitled to adopt a new approach independent of the parties' interpretation of the 1996 agreement.

Parties
Claimant: London and Continental Stations and Property Limited; Defendant: The Rail Regulator; Interested Party: Midland Main Line Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation Calculation, Station Access Agreements, Regulator's Discretion, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Economic Policy in Regulation
Administrative Law Railway Law Human Rights Law Compensation Calculation Station Access Agreements Regulator's Discretion Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Economic Policy in Regulation

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London and Continental Stations and Property Limited

Claimant

The Rail Regulator

Defendant

Midland Main Line Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rail Regulator's compensation regime imposed an excessive and unjustifiable burden on LCSP
  2. 2 Whether the Regulator failed to strike a fair balance between public interest and property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Regulator erred in re-basing compensation on 2003 revenue figures

Ratio Decidendi

The Regulator's compensation regime, including re-basing on 2003 revenue figures and revised methodology for walking time, was rational, within statutory discretion, and did not impose an excessive or unjustifiable burden on LCSP. The regime struck a fair balance between public interest and property rights, did not infringe Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, and was based on expert advice. The Regulator was entitled to adopt a new approach independent of the parties' interpretation of the 1996 agreement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order made by Ouseley J to continue until hearing of consequential matters
  • Liberty to apply