Image from Google Jackets

Elizabeth Susan Pascoe v First SoS and The Urban Regeneration Agency and Liverpool City Counci

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [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.

[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.