P and E v Lesquende Ltd [2003] JRC 167 (19 September 2003)

P and E v Lesquende Ltd [2003] JRC 167 (19 September 2003)

The Board erred in law by adopting a definition of 'scheme' that excluded rezoning as a matter of principle, contrary to Court of Appeal guidance and the underlying rationale of the Point Gourde principle. Rezoning is capable of being part of the scheme if sufficiently closely connected; whether it is so in this case is a matter of fact for the Board to determine based on evidence.

Citation
[2003] JRC 167
Parties
Landowner/applicant: Lesquende Limited; Acquiring Authority/respondent: Planning & Environment Committee
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Under Article 12 of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (procedure) (jersey) 1961 / Judgment on Stated Case Following Arbitration Award
Outcome
Board's decision set aside; matter remitted to Board for reconsideration in accordance with legal guidance.
Legal Topics
Valuation of Compulsorily Acquired Land, Point Gourde Principle, Rezoning and Scheme Identification, Judicial Review of Arbitration Award
Compulsory Purchase Land Law Administrative Law Valuation of Compulsorily Acquired Land Point Gourde Principle Rezoning and Scheme Identification Judicial Review of Arbitration Award

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

Parties

Lesquende Limited

Landowner/applicant

Planning & Environment Committee

Acquiring Authority/respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Under Article 12 of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (procedure) (jersey) 1961 / Judgment on Stated Case Following Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rezoning of Area 1 for Category A housing was part of the scheme for compulsory acquisition under the Point Gourde principle
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law in its definition and application of 'scheme'

Ratio Decidendi

The Board erred in law by adopting a definition of 'scheme' that excluded rezoning as a matter of principle, contrary to Court of Appeal guidance and the underlying rationale of the Point Gourde principle. Rezoning is capable of being part of the scheme if sufficiently closely connected; whether it is so in this case is a matter of fact for the Board to determine based on evidence.

Court Disposition

Board's decision set aside; matter remitted to Board for reconsideration in accordance with legal guidance.

Orders

  • Board to reconsider whether rezoning was part of the scheme based on evidence and guidance in this judgment.
  • Parties may make written submissions on the specific issue within an appropriate timescale.