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.