Compulsory Purchase Order in UK Law

But this argument is in reality a play on the meaning of the word nullity. An Order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of Orders.

The debate between the successful claimants and the Secretary of State, and the Port of London Authority, is what is meant by "quash the compulsory purchase order". Mr Village QC submits that that means that the whole of the compulsory purchase order as made and as confirmed falls to be quashed. There is only one compulsory purchase order, he submits, and that is what is quashed.

(3) Although no question of common intention arises, one must construe the compulsory purchase order and ascertain the intention of the acquiring authority. Camden must have intended to acquire the rights here in question, without which it would be impossible for the maisonettes to be used as houses.

And it cannot be disputed that it is often wise, and not always risky, for a person threatened with the compulsory acquisition of his property to find alternative accommodation which may put him to expense and which may cause disturbance and loss of trade or business. Such prudent anticipation may mitigate the loss resulting from losing the property, whereas waiting to move till the last moment may increase the dispossessed person's loss.

But in this case I am unable, consonant with the essential principles of fairness in a dispute, to uphold this compulsory purchase order. All cases in which principles of natural justice are invoked must depend on the particular circumstances of the cases. I can only say that in my opinion, in the circumstances I have outline, Fairmount has not had—in a phrase whose derivation neither I nor your Lordships could trace—a fair crack of the whip.

Under this Section it seems to me that the Court can interferewith the Minister's decision if he has acted on no evidence; or if he has come to a conclusion to which on the evidence he could not reasonably come; or if he has given a wrong interpretation to the words of the Statute; or if he has taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into account, or vice versa; or has otherwise gone wrong in law.

The change in the rules reflected the reality in planning and Compulsory Purchase Order inquiries and other inquiries of a similar kind. It is very difficult to disentangle straightforward findings of fact from matters of judgment or opinion and thus one very often sees findings of fact and conclusions and opinions mixed up.