Kuznetsov & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Applications under Acquisition of Land Act 1981, section 23, engage ordinary public-law principles. A procedural breach permits relief only where the claimant proves substantial prejudice under section 24(2). The court must distinguish legal error from disagreement with the merits, factual conclusions or weight given to material considerations. Public inquiry inspectors have broad procedural discretion, including over evidence and cross-examination, subject to fairness. Bias is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Reasons are read as a whole and need address the principal controversial issues. A CPO may take account of connected phases of a wider scheme. The claims failed because the admitted procedural breaches caused no substantial prejudice and no irrationality, material error of fact, unfairness, bias or inadequate reasoning was established.

The claimants challenged confirmation by the Secretary of State of the London Borough of Camden (Bacton Low Rise) Compulsory Purchase Order 2015. The first claimant brought a statutory challenge under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and judicial review of the Council’s subsequent general vesting declaration. The second claimant brought a statutory challenge.

The challenges concerned alleged defects in notice and disclosure, the conduct of the public inquiry, apparent bias, the evidential basis for redevelopment and viability, affordable housing, open-space procedure, alternatives to demolition and the second claimant’s status as a qualifying person. The central questions were whether any relevant procedural requirements had been breached, whether any breach substantially prejudiced the claimants, and whether the confirmation decision was legally flawed.

1. Outcome. The first and second claimants’ applications under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 were dismissed. The first claimant’s rolled-up judicial review claim concerning the general vesting declaration also failed.
2. Section 23(1) concerns whether the CPO power was available. Section 23(2) concerns non-compliance with a relevant requirement. In the latter case, section 24(2) requires substantial prejudice. The late statement of case and failure to publish the newspaper notice for two consecutive weeks were breaches, but neither caused substantial prejudice. The first claimant knew of the CPO, objected and participated in the statutory process. The second claimant showed no additional case it would have advanced.
3. The inspector had broad powers under rules 7, 15 and 16 of the Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 to regulate documents, evidence and cross-examination. The restrictions imposed were relevant and proportionate. The inspector was entitled to rely on her site inspection when resolving the service issue without reopening the matter for further submissions.
4. Applying Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, the email expressing frustration with the claimant’s presentation did not establish a real possibility of bias when read as a whole and in context. Hypothetical questioning by the inspector did not demonstrate a closed mind.
5. The court’s jurisdiction was not an appeal on the merits. Questions of judgment, weight and fact were for the inspector and Secretary of State. The evidence concerning refurbishment costs and financial backing provided a rational basis for concluding that the scheme was viable and that refurbishment was not a feasible alternative.
6. Phase 1 was physically and financially connected with the later phases and could properly be considered in assessing the scheme’s benefits and affordable housing. Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Wolverhampton City Council [2010] UKSC 20 was distinguishable.
7. Section 19 of the 1981 Act was not engaged. The land acquired was a leasehold interest and rights of access, not the open space itself, and the estate’s incidental areas did not fall within the statutory definition of open space. The decision-maker’s reasons, read as a whole, adequately addressed the principal controversial issues.