Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1955 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1955] EWCA Civ J0304-1 |
| Docket Number | 1954. S. NO. 3024 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 04 March 1955 |
[1955] EWCA Civ J0304-1
Lord Justices Hodson and
Lord Justices Parker
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Mr. F.H. COLLIER (instructed by Messrs Lucien Fior, Agents for Mr. A.E. Hamlin. Sheringham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (plaintiff).
Mr. W.L. ROOTS (instructed by Messrs Lees & Co., Agents for Messrs Mossop & Holbeach) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Council (Defendants).
Mr. RODGER WINN and Mr. NEIL MCKINNON (instructed by Mr. B. O'Brien) Appeared on behalf of the second and fourth Respondents
(Defendants)
LORD JUSTICE HODSON: I will ask Lord Justice Parker to deliver the Judgment of the Court.
LORD JUSTICE PARKER: This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of Mr Justice Havers dismissing two appeals from Master Clayton, the order being that the writ in the proceedings be set aside and the action stayed as against all four defendants on the ground in effect that it disclosed no cause of action. The actual summonses were not in the ordinary general from under Order 25, Rule 4, but they specifically stated the ground and the ground stated in the summons was this, that as affects all the defendants, the writ of summons in the action is invalid for lack of jurisdiction for the reason that the Court had no Jurisdiction because of a provision in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946.
The Court has not had to go into the facts of the case, but it is quite clear that the plaintiff in her claim against these defendants is seeking to allege that a compulsory purchase order made in respect of her land is invalid by reason of the fact that it was made in bad faith. The provision in the Act which was relieved upon before the Master and before the learned Judge id paragraph 16 of part IV of the First Schedule which provides that: "Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph a Compulsory purchase order or a certificate under Part III of this Schedule shall no, either before or after it has been confirmed, made or given, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever".
Mr Collier has urged on behalf of the appellant before us that that provision in paragraph 16 is limited to a case of the compulsory acquisition of land of the type dealt with under Part III of the Schedule. It is necessary to explain a little the scheme of this Act. By section 1 subsection (1) authorization is provided for the compulsory purchase of certain lands by means of the well known process of compulsory purchase orders. That is quite general. Subsection (2) provides: "The purchase in acase falling within the last foregoing section of land (a) which is the property of a local authority" or land which forms a common or open...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Richards and Another) v Pembrokeshire County Council
...have an impact on the continuing effectiveness of the reasoning in Ostler. Even if it does not, it may be that the reasoning in Smith East Elloe District Council [1956] AC 735 (which drove the decision in Ostler) had been rendered obsolete by the reasoning in Anisminic Limited Foreign Compe......
- Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd
-
McKenna v O Ciarain
... ... UNREP FINLAY 14.12.1977 1977/2/306 SMITH V EAST ELLOE RDC 1956 1 AER 855 VOCATIONAL ... 1994 1 IR 384 HEALY V FINGAL CO COUNCIL UNREP BARR 17.1.1997 1997/4/1170 BEIRNE V ... ...
- R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington and Another