R v Commission for the New Towns, Ex parte Tomkins and Another
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1989) 58 PCR 57-67(11)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 25 October 1988. Appeal by two farmers, T and L, against decision refusing to grant relief by way of judicial review, against (C). T and L claimed that C had erred in law by pursuing their statutory duty under the New Towns Act 1981 rather than following DoE guidelines issued in 1983 that land surplus to requirements should be offered to former owners. T and L were owners of land compulsorily purchased by C`s predecessor in title, for new town development; the land remained in agricultural use and C had the power to dispose of surplus land . The land was to be sold with consent for residential use and s37(3) of the 1981 Act, as amended by the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985 , required that C should obtain the best price possible for the land; this could only be achieved by offering the land for sale by tender. At issue was whether C should have first offered the land to T and L. CA dismissed the appeal, holding that the law required C to dispose of land at th| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41475 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 30435-1001 |
CA 25 October 1988. Appeal by two farmers, T and L, against decision refusing to grant relief by way of judicial review, against (C). T and L claimed that C had erred in law by pursuing their statutory duty under the New Towns Act 1981 rather than following DoE guidelines issued in 1983 that land surplus to requirements should be offered to former owners. T and L were owners of land compulsorily purchased by C`s predecessor in title, for new town development; the land remained in agricultural use and C had the power to dispose of surplus land . The land was to be sold with consent for residential use and s37(3) of the 1981 Act, as amended by the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985 , required that C should obtain the best price possible for the land; this could only be achieved by offering the land for sale by tender. At issue was whether C should have first offered the land to T and L. CA dismissed the appeal, holding that the law required C to dispose of land at th