R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

Pascoe v First Secretary of State

PIL are acting for a resident of Edge Lane West, Liverpool who on 27 September 2006 won a High Court challenge against the Compulsory Purchase Order that would have forced her to leave her home. The order was made by English Partnerships who are seeking to acquire all the land in the area under the Government's Housing Market Renewal ("Pathfinder") Initiative.

The Pathfinder scheme allows English Partnerships to serve CPOs on people who own houses in areas where the land is ‘under-used’ or ‘inefficiently used’. This often means that people are forced out of homes in close-knit communities that they have lived in for some years, surrounded by family and friends. In many cases the resident has spent a lot of time and money carrying out work and redecoration to their houses, or adaptations to cope with a disability or illness. To be forced out of the family home causes stress, upset and insult when faced with the justification that the area and, by implication, one’s house is run-down.

Pascoe is just such a case that PIL brought on behalf of a disabled client who takes pride in her home and who has had it specially adapted to meet her needs. As well as losing her close contact with family and friends, the client in this case was offered insulting low compensation for her house. This means that she would be unable to buy any other property in the area. Her local MP described the situation as 'social cleansing'.

PIL mounted the case on several issues. Firstly, the home in question does not fit within the definition of ‘under-used’ or ‘inefficiently used’ land. Second, that the claimant’s rights under Art 6, Art 8 and Art 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) are breached. These Articles enshrine the right to home life, private possessions and a fair and public hearing. The last of these, we argued, was breached through the refusal of the state to provide public funding for the claimant to properly put her objection to the compulsory purchase order at the inquiry stage.

The Court found that the CPO was unlawful and, as a result, constituted a breach to the claimant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.

Robert McCracken QC, of 2 Harcourt Buildings, and Kate Olley, of Landmark Chambers, presented the case over a five-day hearing at the High Court.

Pascoe v First Secretary of State

Internal Links

External Links