Ainsdale Investments Ltd v First Secretary of State and another
Ainsdale Investments Ltd v First Secretary of State and another
- 2004
- Estates Gazette [2004] 35 EG 68-73(6) .
[2004] EWHC 1010 (Admin), 14 May 2004. Claimant A was owner of property in Soho, London partly used for commercial purposes and partly used for residential. Second defendant Westminster City Council made a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) under the Housing Act 1985 s17 due to the poor state of the building which was confirmed by the first defendant S. A appealed on the grounds that s17 did not empower W to acquire commercial part of the building, the cpo had not been made as a last resort and there was no evidential basis concerning tenure problems of the residential part. A also claimed violation of its rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms First Protocol Art 1. The two residents living in the residential part of the property also claimed a violation under Art 8. Application dismissed. Inclusion of the commercial part of the property was authorised by s17 of the 1985 Act. Claims for violation of the Convention were dismissed.
AINSDALE INVESTMENTS LTD V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND ANOTHER
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
HOUSING ACT 1985 S17
MIXED-USE PROPERTY
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 1
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
REPAIRS
FLYING FREEHOLD
[2004] EWHC 1010 (Admin), 14 May 2004. Claimant A was owner of property in Soho, London partly used for commercial purposes and partly used for residential. Second defendant Westminster City Council made a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) under the Housing Act 1985 s17 due to the poor state of the building which was confirmed by the first defendant S. A appealed on the grounds that s17 did not empower W to acquire commercial part of the building, the cpo had not been made as a last resort and there was no evidential basis concerning tenure problems of the residential part. A also claimed violation of its rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms First Protocol Art 1. The two residents living in the residential part of the property also claimed a violation under Art 8. Application dismissed. Inclusion of the commercial part of the property was authorised by s17 of the 1985 Act. Claims for violation of the Convention were dismissed.
AINSDALE INVESTMENTS LTD V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND ANOTHER
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS
HOUSING ACT 1985 S17
MIXED-USE PROPERTY
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 1
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
REPAIRS
FLYING FREEHOLD