Bedford Land Investments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Before the 2013 amendment, the statutory power to award inter-party costs in compulsory purchase order proceedings arose only where a public local inquiry was actually convened and opened. Preparatory participation in the inquiry process did not make an objector a party “at the inquiry”. The distinction between the power to recover the Minister’s costs “in relation to the inquiry” and the power to order the parties’ costs “at the inquiry” was deliberate. The later amendment broadened the power for future orders and did not clarify the pre-existing law. The absence of a costs remedy in this situation did not engage property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 because withdrawal of the order involved no deprivation of property.

The claimant, a landowner, objected to compulsory purchase and side roads orders made by the interested party for a bypass. After the claimant incurred substantial preparatory costs, the orders were withdrawn before the scheduled public inquiry. The Secretary of State refused a costs award, applying the pre-2013 statutory scheme and relevant policy guidance. Judicial review was brought on the basis that the statutory power extended to an inquiry which had been arranged but did not take place, and that a contrary interpretation produced unfair and disproportionate consequences. A second ground concerning the policy guidance was withdrawn. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had power to award inter-party costs where no public inquiry was opened.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was lawful.
2. Section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, applied by section 5(3) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, empowered the Secretary of State to make orders as to costs of parties “at the inquiry”. In context, that meant physical attendance or representation at a convened public local inquiry.
3. The statutory language deliberately differed from section 250(4), which concerned costs incurred “in relation to the inquiry”. The former provision was triggered by an inquiry, whereas the latter was triggered by causing an inquiry to be held. The pre-inquiry steps governed by the applicable procedure rules formed part of the process leading to the inquiry, but were not the inquiry itself.
4. The later insertion of section 5(4), by section 3 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, expressly addressed cancelled inquiries and non-attendance. Its transitional provision excluded compulsory purchase orders made before 25 June 2013. That amendment broadened the power and did not declare or clarify the earlier law.
5. Circular 03/2009 was consistent with the statutory scheme. Its policy criteria contemplated attendance, representation, or consideration of written representations within the specified procedures. The costs regime did not make costs follow the event, and the discretion was not limited to the costs of physical attendance.
6. The claimant’s property-rights arguments did not alter the construction. Once the compulsory purchase order had been withdrawn, there was no deprivation of property and Article 1 of Protocol 1 was not engaged. The court therefore dismissed the claim and invited submissions on the final order and costs.