Foley v The County Council of the City And County of Cardiff

The claimant challenged a compulsory purchase order (made under Parts I and II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and section 17 of the Housing Act 1985) on multiple grounds: illegality under the Equality Act 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments, breach of the public sector equality duty, irrationality and disproportionate interference, procedural unfairness, and incompatibility with the Convention right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1, First Protocol) read with the Human Rights Act 1998. The court found the property had been empty since 1994 and that the council had pursued cooperative remedies (including the Houses into Homes scheme and improvement notices) over many years before resolving that compulsory purchase was the proportionate course.

The judge held that the council had considered the claimant's depression and anxiety in its dealings, that the council's established practice of bringing long-term empty dwellings back into beneficial occupation (including by compulsory purchase where cooperative measures fail) fell within the phrase "provision, criterion or practice" in the Equality Act, and that on the facts the council had made reasonable adjustments and had not discriminated under section 15. The public sector equality duty (section 149) had been taken into account and, even if there had been a shortcoming, it was highly likely the outcome would have been the same; the order was not irrational or disproportionate; procedural fairness was adequate; and the interference with property rights was justified in the public interest. The claim failed and the order was held valid.

Background and nature of the claim: The claimant owned 1 Cyril Crescent, Cardiff, an end-of-terrace dwelling left empty since 1994. The County Council proposed and made a compulsory purchase order to bring the empty dwelling back into beneficial occupation, referring to housing need in Cardiff and the council's strategy which contemplates compulsory purchase where cooperative measures fail. The claimant brought proceedings under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 seeking to challenge the order as a person aggrieved and to quash it under section 24(2). Relief sought was quashing of the compulsory purchase order.

Issues framed by the court: (i) whether the council breached duties under the Equality Act 2010 (including alleged discrimination under section 15, the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20–22, and the public sector equality duty under section 149), (ii) whether the decision to make the order was irrational or disproportionate, (iii) whether the procedure was unfair, and (iv) whether the decision was incompatible with Convention rights (Article 1, First Protocol), contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Factual matrix and procedural posture: The court summarised engagement between council officers and the claimant from 2008 to 2019: multiple visits, offers of assistance including an application to the Houses into Homes scheme, an improvement notice in 2014, repeated requests for evidence and progress, claimant explanations referring to bereavement, depression and anxiety, changing plans (conversion to flats, plans to sell his home to fund works), correspondence in 2018 asking for time to declutter and sell, the council deferring action intermittently, the council's officer report recommending a CPO in 2018, consultation in 2018, notice of making the order in 2019 and ultimately confirmation via Welsh Ministers in November 2019. The claimant withdrew an objection to the Inspectorate in September 2019.

Court's reasoning: The court applied established principles governing CPOs (that they should be used only where there is a compelling public interest and interference with property rights is justified) and analysed the Equality Act duties by reference to authorities on the meaning of "provision, criterion or practice" and on how public authorities satisfy the public sector equality duty. The judge found: the council's housing strategy and practice of targeting long-term empty houses for return to use, including by compulsory purchase, meant the impugned action came within the Equality Act concept; the council had taken the claimant's disabilities into account, delayed progressing the CPO on several occasions, engaged with the claimant and offered routes to assistance, and agreed periods of abeyance; there was no evidence the council treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from his disability in breach of section 15; the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the council had made adjustments in practice by not progressing the procedure for long periods and by attempting cooperative solutions; the public sector equality duty had been considered and, even if a shortfall existed, it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been different and the court would in any event decline to quash the order; the decision was not irrational or disproportionate when balanced against the public interest in rehousing and the long period the property had been empty; procedural fairness and Convention rights were not infringed. The judge therefore dismissed the claim and upheld the CPO.

The judgment records that the council will pay market-value compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1961 but does not set out any further remedial directions other than inviting agreed drafts where necessary.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that none of the claimant's grounds (illegality under the Equality Act 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments, breach of the public sector equality duty, irrationality/disproportionality, procedural unfairness, or infringement of human rights) succeeded. The council had a lawful and proportionate basis for making the compulsory purchase order to bring a long-term empty dwelling back into beneficial occupation, had taken the claimant's disabilities into account in its dealings, and the interference with property rights was justified in the public interest.