Image from Google Jackets

R v Commission for the New Towns, ex parte Tomkins and Leach

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; 28(5) June 1988, 106-109(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 16 February 1988 Application for judicial review of a decision by the Commission to offer certain compulsorily purchased surplus land for sale on the open market and not to give the applicants who originally owned the land first opportunity to buy the land at current open market value. The applicants claimed that the Commission had not properly followed DOE guidelines issued in 1983 on the disposal of surplus land which advised that former owners of such land should generally be given first opportunity to repurchase land previously in their ownership so long as there has been no material change in its character since compulsory purchase . QBD held, dismissing the application for judicial review, that the commission was entitled to decide that the only way of finding the best price was to go out to tender, and that the Commission should have regard to the DOE guidelines, but was not bound by them. There was also no duty on the Commission to seek the consent of the SOS to a specifi
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39484 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17087-1001

QBD 16 February 1988 Application for judicial review of a decision by the Commission to offer certain compulsorily purchased surplus land for sale on the open market and not to give the applicants who originally owned the land first opportunity to buy the land at current open market value. The applicants claimed that the Commission had not properly followed DOE guidelines issued in 1983 on the disposal of surplus land which advised that former owners of such land should generally be given first opportunity to repurchase land previously in their ownership so long as there has been no material change in its character since compulsory purchase . QBD held, dismissing the application for judicial review, that the commission was entitled to decide that the only way of finding the best price was to go out to tender, and that the Commission should have regard to the DOE guidelines, but was not bound by them. There was also no duty on the Commission to seek the consent of the SOS to a specifi