Aina, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Hackney

A compulsory purchase order confirmed by the Secretary of State had to be challenged by statutory appeal under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, s 23, within six weeks of publication of the confirmation. Parliament had fixed that period, so the court could not extend it. Judicial review could not circumvent the statutory time limit, and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a late challenge. A vesting declaration could not be challenged independently where the underlying order could not be attacked. A general costs practice could be departed from where an application was wholly groundless. Article 234 permitted references to the European Court of Justice, not the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against Munby J’s refusal, on 19 November 2001, of permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The proposed challenge concerned the alleged withdrawal of a housing renovation grant, a compulsory purchase order relating to property at 89 Listria Park, and a compulsory purchase vesting declaration.

The applicant had previously challenged the compulsory purchase order. Carnwath J refused permission on 24 March 2000, holding that the proper course was to object to the Secretary of State. Robert Walker LJ refused permission to appeal on 24 November 2000. The central issues were whether the later proceedings were maintainable, whether the statutory time limit for challenging the confirmed order had expired, and whether the costs order should stand.

Permission to appeal was refused on all substantive issues, and the costs order was upheld.

1. Housing renovation grant. The grant had not been withdrawn. It had been approved subject to conditions which the applicant failed to satisfy. In any event, the challenge was brought grotesquely out of time.
2. Compulsory purchase order. Munby J had treated the earlier decision of Carnwath J as making further litigation abusive. Laws LJ did not accept that analysis, since Carnwath J had only held that the applicant’s proper remedy was to object to the Secretary of State, which the applicant had done.
3. Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 required the confirmed order to be challenged in the High Court by statutory appeal within six weeks after publication of the Secretary of State’s confirmation. The period was fixed by Parliament and could not be extended by the court. The proceedings were issued well into 2001, long after the period had expired. Even if the judicial review application were treated as a statutory appeal, it was out of time, and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge.
4. The challenge to the vesting declaration could not succeed because the compulsory purchase order itself could not be attacked.
5. The Practice Direction’s general indication that costs would not usually be ordered against a claimant refused permission did not prevent a costs order where circumstances justified departure. The application was wholly groundless, so Laws LJ declined to interfere with Munby J’s order requiring payment of 75% of the council’s costs.
6. As an ancillary observation, Article 234 concerned references under European Union law to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. There was no procedure for this court to refer a matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and no domestic permission was required for a direct application there.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 February 2002, Laws LJ refused permission to appeal against Munby J’s refusal of permission for judicial review and upheld the order for 75% of the council’s costs: [2002] EWCA Civ 218.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Munby J refused permission for judicial review on 19 November 2001.
3. Earlier proceedings: Carnwath J refused an earlier application for permission on 24 March 2000, directing the applicant to object to the Secretary of State. Robert Walker LJ refused permission to appeal on 24 November 2000.