Image from Google Jackets

R v SoS Environment Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding & Barnes plc and others

Series: Estates Gazette ; [2001] 05 EG 170-186(17)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: QBD 13 December 2000.In a conjoined hearing of three applications for judicial review and an application by the SoS it was contended that the SoS's powers to call in or recover planning decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Highways Act 1961 contravened the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1). The applications were on the grounds that the SoS is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by the Article and that the Human Rights Act 1998 s6(1) meant that the SoS's actions were unlawful. The SoS did not argue that he himself was such a tribunal but contended that right to appeal to the High Court, together with the role of the High Court on review, meant that the process as a whole was in accordance with the Article. "Held": Declaration of incompatibility ordered. The SoS's powers were not in accordance with the Article but his actions were not unlawful as s6(2) of the Act applied.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS63468 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 110755-1001
Law report London Journal article ABS63468 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 2 Available 110755-1002

QBD 13 December 2000.In a conjoined hearing of three applications for judicial review and an application by the SoS it was contended that the SoS's powers to call in or recover planning decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Highways Act 1961 contravened the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1). The applications were on the grounds that the SoS is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by the Article and that the Human Rights Act 1998 s6(1) meant that the SoS's actions were unlawful. The SoS did not argue that he himself was such a tribunal but contended that right to appeal to the High Court, together with the role of the High Court on review, meant that the process as a whole was in accordance with the Article. "Held": Declaration of incompatibility ordered. The SoS's powers were not in accordance with the Article but his actions were not unlawful as s6(2) of the Act applied.