Hall v Sandwell MBC

In determining whether land was lawfully used for compensation purposes following compulsory acquisition, the court must construe the operative enforcement notice. Once its validity cannot be challenged under section 285(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the issue is what the notice required and what uses it prohibited. Later correspondence or informal planning views cannot displace that construction. Procedural complaints do not justify permission to appeal where they could not have affected preliminary issues turning on law and involving no materially disputed facts. Delay in taking possession is irrelevant where the claim concerns compensation for loss of use. The proposed ECHR fair-trial and property-protection grounds were unarguable.

This was a renewed application by Hall for permission to appeal, following refusal on paper by Sir Richard Buxton, against preliminary rulings made by George Bartlett QC, President of the Lands Tribunal, after a hearing on 9 January 2008. The dispute arose from Sandwell MBC’s compulsory purchase of Hall’s land and concerned compensation for business loss and chattels.

The Lands Tribunal held that the commercial use was unlawful, that the disturbance claim was excluded by Rule 4 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, and that commercial chattels were not compensable, although a claim for personal chattels might remain. Hall alleged procedural irregularities, challenged the construction of the enforcement notice, relied on delay and invoked the ECHR. The central issue was whether any proposed ground of appeal was arguable.

Application refused. Lord Justice Aikens considered the proposed appeal against preliminary rulings on compensation following compulsory purchase. The Court of Appeal was concerned with arguability, rather than reopening the compensation assessment.

1. Procedural complaints. The alleged irregularities at the Lands Tribunal hearing could not have affected the result. The preliminary issues were largely questions of law, and no material facts were disputed. There was consequently no arguable complaint that Hall had been denied a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.
2. Effect of the enforcement notices. The lawfulness of the commercial use had to be judged by the requirements of the enforcement notices issued in 1992 and amended following the 1993 appeal. Their validity could not be impugned under section 285(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. Construction. The relevant question was therefore one of construction: what the enforcement notices required Hall to do and what they prevented him from doing. The President had considered the amended notice, the planning inspector’s letter and the later correspondence. His construction was persuasive, and there was no arguable ground that it was wrong.
4. Delay and property rights. Hall’s points about delay were misconceived because the proceedings concerned compensation for loss of use, not the sequence of events leading to possession. For the same reasons, the proposed ground based on Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR was not arguable.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2009] EWCA Civ 1064, Lord Justice Aikens refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and ordered that the application be refused.
• Court of Appeal, paper stage: Permission to appeal had been refused on paper by Sir Richard Buxton.
• Lands Tribunal: George Bartlett QC, President of the Lands Tribunal, determined preliminary issues after a hearing on 9 January 2008 and gave written judgment on 14 January 2008.