Baker v First Secretary of State
Nicholas Blake QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the division
Claimant living in squalor — House declared unfit for human habitation — Local authority issuing compulsory purchase order — Whether such order violating claimant’s human rights — Claim dismissed
The claimant owned a house on a small estate. The property was in a state of extreme disrepair and was filled with rubbish, which attracted rats and other vermin. Other inhabitants on the estate had complained over a long period, and the local council had issued the claimant with various enforcement notices, none of which had been complied with.
In September 1998, the property was gutted by a fire that had left only the external walls intact. The claimant nevertheless continued to live there, again accumulating rubbish and attracting vermin.
Claimant living in squalor — House declared unfit for human habitation — Local authority issuing compulsory purchase order — Whether such order violating claimant’s human rights — Claim dismissed
The claimant owned a house on a small estate. The property was in a state of extreme disrepair and was filled with rubbish, which attracted rats and other vermin. Other inhabitants on the estate had complained over a long period, and the local council had issued the claimant with various enforcement notices, none of which had been complied with.
In September 1998, the property was gutted by a fire that had left only the external walls intact. The claimant nevertheless continued to live there, again accumulating rubbish and attracting vermin.
At a meeting with the local authority, the claimant proposed to repair the property over a two-year period. However, given that she was elderly and not employed, and that the house was uninsured, she had no funds with which to finance the proposals. The council refused to accept her programme of works, and, in 2001, they made a compulsory purchase order (CPO) in respect of the property. An inspector subsequently upheld the decision. The claimant challenged the validity of the CPO under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 on the ground that it infringed her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
It was common ground that the house was unfit for human habitation. In the circumstances, the public interest was best served by the issuing of the CPO, even though such an order did interfere with the claimant’s Convention rights. On the evidence, the defendant had given adequate consideration to the alternatives, and had paid appropriate attention to the statutory powers available to him.
Iain Colville (instructed by Debidins) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister