Recent Legal Decisions affecting Public Administration
| Published date | 01 April 1936 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1936.tb02431.x |
| Date | 01 April 1936 |
| Author | F. A. Enever |
Notes
RECENT
LEGAL
DECISIONS
AFFECTING
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
By
F.
A.
ENEVER,
M.A.,
LL.D.
SYNOPSIS
Caapdsory
Purchase
;
Clearance
Order
;
Superannuation
AUowance
;
Maintenance
Orders
;
Compulsory Purchase
In
Burgesses of Sheffield
v.
Minister
of
Health
(52
Ttmes
Law
Reports,
171;
181
Law
Times,
10;
80
Solicitors’ Journal.
16)
three areas and part of
a
fourth area had been
declared to be clearance
areas
and
the
Sheflield Corporation made compulsory purchase
orders
in
respect of
all
four areas. The question arose whether there was power for
the
Corporation
to
make and for the Minister of Health
to
confirm the compulsory purchase
order
in
respect of that
part
of the
fourth
area which did not form part of
a
clearance
Where
as
respects any area declared by them to be
a
clearance area,
a
local
authority determine
to
purchase any land comprised
in
the area, they may
pur-
chase also any land which
is
surrounded by the clearance area and the acquisition
of which is reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing
a
cleared
area
of
convenient shape and dimensions and any adjoining land
the
acquisition
of
which is reasonably
necessary
for the sabsfactory development or user of the
cleared area.
The Minister
of
Health,
in
confirming
the
orders, was of opinion that the acquisition
of
that part of the fourth area which was outside the clearance area was necessary for
the satisfactory development of
all
the lands
in
the four
areas.
Mr. Justice Swift, in the course of his judgment, stated
that
section
3
of the Housing
Act,
1930,
dealt with two diiferent positions. The
first
was
where the clearance area
land surrounded the other land, and that clearly had
no
application to the present
case.
The second was where the clearance
area
land was adjacent
to
the other land and the
acquisition of
that
other land was reasonably necessary for the development scheme.
His, Lordship thought
that
it was impossible to say
that
there was not ample material
justifying the Minister in deciding
that.
for the proper development
of
the land included
in the clearance
area
it
was reasonably necessary
to
acquire the remainder of the fourth
area
and held that the Corporation were entitled
to
treat all those
areas
as
one for the
purpose of developing them.
Clearance Order
In
Baildon Urban (Park Lane Areas) Confirmation Order,
1935
(Application
of
William Denby
&
Sons,
Ltd.)
(52
Times
Law
Reports,
173;
81
LRW
Journal,
IO),
the
sole point
at
issue was whether
a
person whose property was dected by
a
clearance
order made under the
Housing
Act,
1930,
is
entitled
to
see the report made to the
Minister
of
Health by the person whom he caused
to
hold
a
public
local
inquiry as
required
by
the
First
Schedule to
the
Act.
Mr.
Justice
Swift held
that
there was
no
reason in the
case
under consideration for
holding
that
the report was liable
to
disclosure.
In
the course of his judgment
His
Lorilship stated
that
there was
no
doubt,
as
had
been
held by the
Court
of Appeal in
Emngton
P).
Minister
of
Health
([1935]
I
K.B.
249;
XI11
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION,
8I),
that once notice of objection had been given to
a
clearance order, the Minister of
Health must be regarded
as
a
person
exercising quasi-judicial functions
and
that
he was
bound by the rules
of
conduct applicable to such
a
person. But
that
did not dispose
of
the
matter.
It
was
not right
to
say that the Minister of Health or any other officer of
Sbte who had to administer an Act of Parliament was a judicial officer. He was an
administrative officer carrying out the duties of an administrative office and adminis-
Diversion
of
Foomth.
area.
Section
3
of
the Housing Act,
1930,
states:-
215
G2
To continue reading
Request your trial