Planning Cttee. v Lesquende Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Gloster and Beloff, JJ.A.: |
| Judgment Date | 05 January 1998 |
| Date | 05 January 1998 |
| Court | Privy Council |
W.J. Bailhache for the appellant;
M.M.G. Voisin for the respondent.
Cases cited:
(1) Barker, In re, 1985-86 JLR 284.
(2) Bradshaw v. Air Council, [1926] Ch. 329; (1925), 135 L.T. 538; 95 L.J. Ch. 499; 24 L.G.R. 351; 70 Sol. Jo. 367; sub nom. Bradshaw v. Air Ministry, 42 T.L.R. 197.
(3) Council of Civil Serv. Unions v. Minister for Civil Serv., [1985] A.C. 374; [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1174; [1984] 3 All E.R. 935; [1985] I.C.R. 14; (1984), 128 Sol. Jo. 837; sub nom. R. v. Foreign & Commonwealth Secy., ex p. Council of Civil Serv. Unions, [1985] I.R.L.R. 28, considered.
(4) Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea v. British Italian Trading Co. Ltd., [1963] 1 Q.B. 201; [1962] 2 All E.R. 53; (1962), 106 Sol. Jo. 219; sub nom. Andrea v. British Italian Trading Co. Ltd., [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 151.
(5) Harbours & Airport Cttee., In re, 1991 JLR 316, dicta of Tomes, Deputy Bailiff considered.
(6) Horn v. Sunderland Corp., [1941] 2 K.B. 26; [1941] 1 All E.R. 480; (1941), 165 L.T. 298; 57 T.L.R. 404; 110 L.J.K.B. 353; 39 L.G.R. 367; 105 J.P. 223; 85 Sol. Jo. 212.
(7) Housing Cttee. v. Phantesie Invs., 1985-86 JLR 96.
(8) Idocare Properties Ltd. v. Planning & Environment Cttee., Royal Ct., June 5th, 1997, unreported.
(9) Jones and Carter's Arbitration, In re, [1922] 2 Ch. 599; (1922), 127 L.T. 622; 38 T.L.R. 779; 91 L.J. Ch. 824; 66 Sol. Jo. 611, considered.
(10) Le Gros v. Housing Cttee., 1974 J.J. 77, considered.
(11) Le Masurier v. Natural Beauties Cttee., Royal Ct. (1958), 13 C.R. 138, unreported.
(12) Leech v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, [1988] A.C. 533; [1988] 1 All E.R. 485; sub nom. R. v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, ex p. Leech (1988), 132 Sol. Jo. 191, applied.
(13) Pasmore v. Oswaldtwhistle U.D.C., [1898] A.C. 387; [1895-9] All E.R. Rep. 191; (1898), 78 L.T. 569; 14 T.L.R. 368; 67 L.J.Q.B. 635; 62 J.P. Jo. 628, not followed.
(14) R. v. Chief Const. (Merseyside), ex p. Calveley, [1986] Q.B. 424; [1986] 1 All E.R. 257; (1985), 130 Sol. Jo. 53.
(15) R. v. Epping & Harlow Gen. Commrs., ex p. Goldstraw, [1983] 3 All E.R. 257; [1983] STC 693; (1983), 57 T.C. 536, dictum of Donaldson, M.R. applied.
(16) R. v. Home Secy., ex p. Swati, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 477; [1986] 1 All E.R. 717; [1986] Imm. A.R. 88; (1986), 130 Sol. Jo. 186.
(17) R. v. National Joint Council for Craft of Dental Technicians (Disputes Cttee.), ex p. Neate, [1953] 1 Q.B. 704; [1953] 1 All E.R. 327; sub nom. R. v. National Joint Council for Craft of Dental Technicians (1953), 97 Sol. Jo. 116, dicta of Lord Goddard, C.J. considered.
(18) R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p. Shaw, [1952] 1 K.B. 338; [1952] 1 All E.R. 122; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 161; (1952), 50 L.G.R. 193; 2 P. & C.R. 361; 96 Sol. Jo. 29; 116 J.P. 54, dicta of Denning, L.J. considered.
(19) Racal Communications Ltd., In re, [1981] A.C. 374; [1980] 2 All E.R. 634; (1980), 124 Sol. Jo. 495.
(20) Racecourse Betting Control Bd. v. Air Secy., [1944] Ch. 114; [1944] 1 All E.R. 60, dicta of Lord Greene, M.R. considered.
(21) Scott v. Island Dev. Cttee., 1966 J.J. 631.
Additional cases cited by counsel:
Cedars Rapids Mfg. & Power Co. v. Lacoste, [1914] A.C. 569 ([1914] UKPC 5).
South E. Ry. Co. v. London C.C., [1915] 2 Ch. 252.
Legislation construed:
Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12: The relevant terms of this article are set out at page 6, lines 8-18.
art. 13: The relevant terms of this article are set out at page 14, lines 20-28.
Texts cited:
Blom-Cooper & Blake, Judicial Review in Jersey, Public Law 371 (1997).
de Smith, Woolf & Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th ed., para. 18-032, at 753; para. 20-018, at 813 (1995).
Encyclopaedia of the Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, vol. 1, para. 76, at 1035 (Release 12: 1-xi-63).
Hogg, Law of Arbitration, at 147 (1936).
Jacob, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, 23 Current Legal Problems, at 49-50 (1970).
Lewis, Judicial Review in Jersey, 1 Jersey Law Review 28 (1997).
Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., at 439-440; at 448 (1989).
Administrative Law—judicial review—jurisdiction—Royal Court has jurisdiction even though judicial review procedure not yet developed—may review administrative decision on ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
Administrative Law—judicial review—alternative remedies—Royal Court may review decision of Board of Arbitrators even though parties' opportunity to request special case for opinion of court under Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12 not used—judicial review is remedy of last resort and preferable to use statutory procedure
Planning Law—compulsory purchase—settlement of price by arbitration—case stated—Board of Arbitrators may submit special case for opinion of Royal Court under Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 12 after award handed down—if unreasonably refuses request to state case, decision amenable to judicial review
Planning Law—compulsory purchase—settlement of price by arbitration—registration of award—registration of award under Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 13 no bar to Board's submission of special case for opinion of Royal Court under art. 12
The respondent sought to challenge an award made in statutory arbitration proceedings concerning the compulsory purchase of its land.
The respondent company owned land which the States sought to purchase on behalf of the public of the Island for the purpose of a building development. The States therefore authorized the appellant Committee to negotiate a price but on the parties' failure to agree, the question was submitted to a Board of Arbitrators under the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961. The Board made its award accordingly, specifying a much lower price than that sought by the respondent. That award was subsequently registered with the Royal Court under art. 13 of the Law.
The respondent then applied to the Royal Court for judicial review of the Board's decision, submitting, inter alia, that it had taken improper factors into account in coming to its decision. At no time did either party request the Board to state as a special case for the opinion of the Royal Court either its award or any question of law arising from the proceedings, nor did the Board do so of its own motion, as was provided for by art. 12 of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961 (which also provided that the Board's findings of fact were conclusive, as was any opinion of the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on a case so stated).
The Royal Court (Kempster, Commr. and Jurats Bonn and Jones) set aside the award, holding, inter alia, that (a) it had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board, despite the existence of the procedure for stating a special case for the opinion of the court in art. 12, which had not but arguably could have been used (although the court expressed some doubt as to its efficacy in such circumstances); (b) because in the present circumstances both parties had supported the judicial review, it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to review the Board's decision; and (c) on such an application, the scope of the court's power was similar to that wielded by the English courts, namely, it could quash the decision on the ground of error of law (whether or not that error appeared on the face of the record), unreasonableness or procedural impropriety. These proceedings are reported at 1997 JLR 56.
On appeal, the court considered as preliminary issues (a) whether the Royal Court did indeed have an inherent jurisdiction to review executive decisions; (b) whether, in the light of art. 12, judicial review was precluded in the present circumstances, neither party having availed itself of the statutory case stated procedure; (c) whether, if it was not so precluded, the court should nevertheless refuse to exercise that jurisdiction in the exercise of its discretion, on the ground that there existed an alternative remedy in art. 12; (d) whether that alternative remedy was effective—in particular, (i) whether it was available at an appropriate juncture in the proceedings, and (ii) whether it was vitiated by the possibility that the Board could refuse an application by either party to state a case for the opinion of the Royal Court; and (e) whether the award's registration with the Royal Court under art. 13 of the Law would prevent the case stated procedure from being used.
Held, making the following order:
(1) Judicial review was available in Jersey to control abuse of executive power, even though the procedure for doing so was not as yet fully developed. Broadly, the power of the court in exercising its review function was similar to that wielded in other common law jurisdictions, namely, it could quash a decision on the ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety (page...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº ACQ 132 1998. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 06-04-2000
...cases.” This principle was affirmed by the Privy Council in Lesquende Ltd v Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey [1998] 1 EGLR 137, where Lord Clyde said (page “In a compulsory acquisition it is the acquiring authority who have brought about the problem through their u......
-
Decision Nº ACQ 138 1999. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 07-06-2000
...Ltd v Aberdeen District Council (No.2) (1995) 35 RVR 159; Lesquende Ltd v Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey [1998] 1 EGLR 137 and English Property Corporation v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (1999) 77 P&CR 1). My starting point is therefore that the Council ......