Two further issues for the court arose in R (on the application of Iceland Foods Ltd) v
The claimant sought, inter alia, an order quashing the general vesting declaration (GVD). The local planning authority (LPA) argued before the court that while the decisions that preceded the making of the GVD were susceptible to judicial review, the administrative acts of making the GVD and serving statutory notice of it on the occupiers of the land in question were not. Having had regard to the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the judge rejected this argument, stating as follows, in [54]:
“As is clear from these statutory provisions it is the GVD which confers title to the land in question upon the acquiring authority. Almost as a matter of instinct, therefore, it would seem to me that it is the GVD itself, when executed, that should be the subject of any challenge by way of judicial review.”
This, as the judge pointed out, accorded with the approach of the House of Lords in R (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham
The LPA also contended that the claim had not been filed in accordance with CPR 54.5, namely “(a) promptly; and (b) in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”. On the facts, it was clear that the GVD was executed on 27 November 2009. The claim was filed on 24 February 2010. The judge acknowledged that this was shortly before the expiry of the three-month period. He expressed grave reservations about whether the claim was filed promptly, but decided that it would be wrong to refuse permission in a case such as this on the ground of lack of promptness.
This, of course, was of little comfort to the claimant since its principal substantive ground had failed, as had its secondary substantive ground, namely that the LPA’s decision to implement the compulsory purchase order had been Wednesbury unreasonable.
John Martin is a freelance writer
