Compulsory purchase order — Right to sue — Claimant no longer having an interest in affected land — Whether claimant person aggrieved — Claim dismissed
The defendant proposed various orders for the compulsory purchase of land that was required for the improvement of the A30 trunk road in Cornwall. The orders were confirmed following a public inquiry at which the claimant appeared as an objector. The claimant lived 20 miles from the route of the new road. Although he had previously held a lease granting him tin-mining rights over part of the affected land, he no longer had any interest at the date of the orders.
The claimant brought proceedings, under para 2 of Schedule 2 to the Highways Act 1980 and section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, to challenge the legality of the orders. He sought to raise arguments relating to discrimination, contending that the Prince of Wales, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, enjoyed certain privileges denied to ordinary Cornish citizens that contravened domestic, human rights or European law. An issue arose as to whether the claimant was a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the statutes so as to be able to make the claim.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
Although it was difficult to see how the order had prejudicially affected the interests of the claimant, he was none the less a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of the statute, in that he was aggrieved in the ordinary sense of the word and had attended and made representations at the inquiry: Turner v Secretary of State for the Environment (1973) 228 EG 335 applied; Attorney-General of the Gambia v N’Jie [1961] AC 617 considered. However, the claimant’s challenge to the orders was purely hypothetical since the orders raised no issue as to any right or interest belonging to him. His claim that there was discrimination between him and the Duchy of Cornwall could not be sustained by reference to the making of the orders under consideration, since the orders did not deprive the claimant (or the Duchy) of anything.
The claimant appeared in person; Sarah Davies (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
