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

Derker Community Action Group CPO Public Inquiry

PIL are acting for the Derker Community Action Group, a community group of over 257 individuals and families fighting to keep their homes in the Derker ward of Oldham, one of the poorest areas in the country.

Derker Community Action Group CPO Public Inquiry Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council plans to demolish their houses to make way for new houses under the Government-sponsored Pathfinder scheme. Some of the individuals concerned are elderly, have lived in the community for many years and rely on the help of their friends and neighbours for day-to-day living. Others, who suffer from disability or illness, rely on the close-knit community and in many cases have had their homes specially adapted to meet their needs. All the residents concerned point to the fact that their homes are in good condition and there is a warm and friendly community, which will be destroyed. They are angered by the high-handed treatment they have received at the hands of the Council and its unwillingness to listen to their concerns.

The Oldham (Derker Area Phase 1 Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005 was promoted by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council under section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The number of objections to the Council's plans meant that a public inquiry was held from 6th February to 3rd April 2007 to decide whether the Order should be confirmed. It was the residents' case at the public inquiry that Council has failed to show that the Order would contribute to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area, which is a requirement under the Act. They also argued that the Order would breach their human rights to a private and family life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of protocol 1).

The inquiry has now closed and the Inspector has retired to consider his recommendation to the Secretary of State.

The Derker Community Action Group chose PIL to help them in their battle against the Pathfinder initiative. They were represented at the inquiry by Robert McCracken QC of 2 Francis Taylor Buildings.

Derker Community Action Group CPO Public Inquiry

Internal Links

External Links