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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

Second, in the Anisminic case, the House was considering a determination by a truly judicial body, the Foreign Compensation Tribunal, whereas in the Smith v. East Elloe case the House was considering an order which was very much in the nature of an administrative decision. In making a judicial decision, the tribunal considers the rights of the parties without regard to the public interest. The question is, to what extent aie private interests to be subordinated to the public interest.