Mortell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Community and Local Government & Ors

In reviewing a compulsory purchase order, a Convention-compliant compensation code is not conclusive of proportionality. Relevant individual circumstances must still be considered, together with the public interest, available alternatives and the overall fair balance.

An inquiry inspector has no general duty to send written closing submissions to the Secretary of State. The report need identify and address the main issues using professional judgment; it need not provide a blow-by-blow account of every submission or evidential point. Grounds of challenge should be formulated within the applicable six-week period, since delay may cause real prejudice.

The appellant was a statutory objector to the Oldham (Derker Area Phase 1 Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order 2006. The Secretary of State confirmed the order after a public inquiry and accepted the inspector’s recommendation.

Collins J dismissed the appellant’s judicial review claim in [2008] EWHC 3022 (Admin). The Court of Appeal considered three grounds: whether the human rights assessment had properly addressed individual compensation and circumstances; whether the inspector had acted unfairly by not sending written final submissions to the Secretary of State or by failing to summarise them fully; and whether a further challenge based on allegedly missing documents was raised too late.

1. Ground 3. The challenge based on the alleged non-transmission of objectors’ documents was raised more than a year after the decision letter and outside the six-week period for challenging confirmation of the order. The further evidence showed that the factual premise of the challenge was plainly wrong. Since the decision letter referred specifically to the objections and relevant paragraphs of the inspector’s report, the proper inference was that the documents had been considered, absent powerful contrary evidence. Delay had also caused real prejudice because the relevant officer had retired and the documents had been destroyed.
2. Ground 1. The existence of a Convention-compliant compensation code does not, by itself, answer the proportionality question under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Matters such as longstanding family ownership, age, and the proximity of relatives and friends may remain relevant. However, the report and decision letter had to be read as a whole. The inspector had addressed the personal objections, the available relocation schemes and the practical alternatives. The Secretary of State had adopted those conclusions, found a compelling public interest and concluded that a fair balance had been struck. Standard wording was not merely a ritual incantation where the underlying issues had been substantively addressed. The renewed application for permission on ground 1 was refused.
3. Ground 2. Neither the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, nor the inquiry procedure rules imposed a general duty to send written final submissions to the Secretary of State. The inspector remained subject to an overarching duty of fairness, and in some cases, particularly where submissions concerned questions of law, transmission might be useful. That possibility did not establish a general duty.
4. The purpose of an inspector’s report is to assist the decision-maker by identifying the important issues in dispute and applying professional judgment to them. It is not to provide a blow-by-blow account of every item of evidence or every submission. Fairness required an accurate summary and resolution of the main issues. The alleged omissions concerning house prices, regional policy, housing numbers, social housing, affordability and an earlier ministerial statement either were addressed in substance or were not main issues requiring separate mention. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The court refused renewed permission on ground 1 and dismissed the appeal on grounds 2 and 3: [2009] EWCA Civ 1274.
2. Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Collins J dismissed the application challenging confirmation of the compulsory purchase order on 12 December 2008: [2008] EWHC 3022 (Admin).