Image from Google Jackets

Evelyn de Rothschild and Eranda Herds Ltd v SoS Transport and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8820) 21 May 1988, 87-88(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 12 November 1987. An application under Acquisition of Land Act 1981 s23 to quash authorisation for the compulsory purchase of land owned by the applicants (E) and required for a bypass road . E had put forward four alternative schemes involving part of their land, which they were prepared to sell at a valuation for the purpose of the bypass. These schemes had been rejected by the county council and the inspector at public inquiry. E submitted that this showed an erroneous approach on the part of the SoS Environment in regard to the question of onus. The onus was on the acquiring authority to justify the order depriving the applicants of their land. It was held that E`s submission was misconceived, being a criticism of the SoS`s wording by way of an exercise in semantics. The SoS, although expressing his view in a negative manner, was in substance approving the inspector`s conclusion that the route proposed by the council was the best solution in the public interest. Application d
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39182 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 14869-1001

QBD 12 November 1987. An application under Acquisition of Land Act 1981 s23 to quash authorisation for the compulsory purchase of land owned by the applicants (E) and required for a bypass road . E had put forward four alternative schemes involving part of their land, which they were prepared to sell at a valuation for the purpose of the bypass. These schemes had been rejected by the county council and the inspector at public inquiry. E submitted that this showed an erroneous approach on the part of the SoS Environment in regard to the question of onus. The onus was on the acquiring authority to justify the order depriving the applicants of their land. It was held that E`s submission was misconceived, being a criticism of the SoS`s wording by way of an exercise in semantics. The SoS, although expressing his view in a negative manner, was in substance approving the inspector`s conclusion that the route proposed by the council was the best solution in the public interest. Application d