The Court of Appeal has ruled that, when a challenge to a compulsory purchase order (CPO) is successful, a quashing order applies to the CPO in its entirety, not just confirmation of it by the secretary of state.
The point was raised in an appeal over a quashed CPO in respect of an historic London wharf, and also involved representations being made by the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association and developer Orion Shepherds Bush Market, which are embroiled in their own high-profile CPO dispute.
Lawyers representing the transport secretary in the wharf case argued that to quash meant to “deprive of legal effect”, and that all that required in respect of a CPO was to quash its confirmation. That would mean that only the confirmation would have to be reconsidered, not the initial making of a CPO by a local authority.
However, Laws LJ ruled that this submission was “unsustainable” and that, when a quashing order is made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, the whole CPO should fall.
He said: “In short, ‘compulsory purchase order’ means the instrument so called from first to last. If the legislature had intended to allow for relief going only to its confirmation, it would have so provided.”
In today’s decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the quashing of a compulsory purchase order intended to bring the London wharf back into action. Last year, site owners Grafton Group and British Dredging Services won a High Court ruling that the transport secretary’s decision to confirm the CPO covering Orchard Wharf, on the River Thames opposite the o2 Arena, was unfair.
In March, traders at Shepherd’s Bush Market, who claimed a CPO granted ahead of planned redevelopment did not do enough to protect their livelihoods, also won in their Court of Appeal challenge.
The issue of relief in that case was adjourned until after the hearing of the wharf appeal, as the two cases raised common issues relating to the effect of section 24 of the 1981 Act.
