Elizabeth Susan Pascoe v First SoS and The Urban Regeneration Agency and Liverpool City Counci
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s):- PASCOE V FIRST SOS AND OTHERS
- LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S159(2)
- LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S160(4)
- LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S162
- HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S6
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS PROTOCOL1 ART 1
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6.1
- MEYRICK ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD V SOS ENVIRONMENT
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 135449-2001 |
[2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin) 27 September 2006. Considers the statutory requirement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s159(2) to establish whether, considered as a whole, land is under-used or ineffectively used, in order to acquire it compulsorily. Application by P for judicial review of the validity of a compulsory purchase order made by U through powers conferred by s162 of the Act. F's inspector held that the order land fulfilled the s159(2) statutory requirement. F confirmed the order. P contended that F had been mistaken in holding that the s159(2) requirement was satisfied, that the order constituted unjustifiable interference with her Convention rights including the right to a fair hearing. "Held": application granted. F and his inspector had engaged in an impermissible dilution of the statutory requirement that had to be satisfied before U was empowered to acquire the land. The error made by F in confirming the order could not be remedied by recourse to s160(4) of the Act. The interference with P's Convention rights constituted a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 s6 but there had been no breach of her Convention right relating to fair hearing.