De Bierre, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Judicial review of a compulsory purchase confirmation is concerned with legality, rationality, relevant considerations and Convention rights, not the merits or weight of the decision. The decision-maker is entitled to determine matters of judgment and weight. Reasons must intelligibly address the principal important controversial issues, but need not deal with every material consideration. Where successive policy circulars are materially identical on the relevant issue, the court need not determine which circular formally applied. A compulsory purchase order may be confirmed where there is a compelling public interest in bringing long-vacant, uninhabitable housing into use, provided the interference with the owner’s property rights is proportionate.

The claimant owned several properties in Nottingham, including No 5 Worksop Road, which had been vacant and uninhabitable for many years. The city council made a compulsory purchase order in respect of Nos 5 and 7. Following a public inquiry, the inspector recommended confirmation for No 5 but not No 7. The Secretary of State accepted those recommendations and confirmed the order for No 5.

The claimant applied under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to quash the order. She challenged the inspector’s factual conclusions, the treatment of the applicable policy circulars, the alleged public interest, and the compatibility of the acquisition with Articles 8 and 1 of the First Protocol. The central issue was whether any reviewable error of law, irrationality, inadequate reasoning or disproportionate interference had been established.

1. Application dismissed. The court had no appellate jurisdiction on the merits. Under the principles stated in Seddon Properties v Secretary of State [1978] JPL 835, following Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320, intervention was limited to recognised public-law errors, including acting without evidence, reaching an unreasonable conclusion, misinterpreting the statute, taking account of irrelevant matters or failing to take account of relevant matters. The Human Rights Act 1998 also had to be taken into account.
2. The requirement for adequate reasons, explained in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, was satisfied. Reasons had to be intelligible and adequate on the principal important controversial issues, but they need not address every material consideration.
3. The 2003 and 2004 compulsory purchase circulars were identical or not materially different on the points relevant to the case. It was therefore unnecessary to decide which circular formally applied.
4. The inspector was entitled to find a general need for housing accommodation in Nottingham and that renovating and re-occupying No 5 would produce a qualitative and quantitative gain. He was also entitled, having regard to the property’s long vacancy, its uninhabitable condition, the claimant’s past record and lack of a firm timetable, to conclude that compulsory purchase offered a substantially greater probability of timely renovation and occupation.
5. The acquisition of a property in which the claimant did not live engaged Article 1 of the First Protocol, rather than Article 8, and the interference was proportionate because there was a compelling public interest. The application to quash the order was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay £6,500 towards the Secretary of State’s costs.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment records no prior court decision in the same proceedings. The Secretary of State’s decision followed the inspector’s recommendation after the public inquiry.