News

Crucial Olympics compensation battle heads to Court of Appeal

News

Jess Harrold

19 January 2011

Offices

A legal case that could substantially increase the government’s compensation bill for businesses relocated to make way for the 2012 Olympics Games is heading for the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Tomlinson today granted building group Rooff permission to appeal a High Court ruling against it last year.

Rooff wants the Court of Appeal to quash a secretary of state for communities and local government decision that it claims means the the London Development Agency underpaid for its land at Carpenter’s Estate in Stratford, east London.

Rooff claims that because of the regeneration being brought about by the development of the 500-acre Olympic Park in Stratford its land is suitable for a lucrative “landmark” development of mixed residential and business uses, as a key part of the regeneration of the area that was likely to take place.

But Newham council refused Rooff a certificate for appropriate alternative development of the site, specifying that it was suitable for residential use.

Then, in July 2009, the secretary of state rejected Rooff’s appeal against that decision under the Land Compensation Act 1961, on the basis of his inspector’s conclusion that, when the compulsory purchase order was launched on 16 November 2005, the only alternative development use for which planning consent would have been granted was B1 (business) and B2 (general industrial).

Challenging that decision in the High Court last year, Rooff claimed that the inspector’s reasoning was “unintelligible”, “inadequate” and gave rise to a “substantial doubt as to whether the inspector erred in law in many respects”.

Rejecting Rooff’s challenge last July, Mr Justice Blake found that while the inspector’s report lacked the sufficient clarity, it could not be challenged as irrational, illogical or insufficiently reasoned.

Now Rooff claims that the judge erred in failing to quash the decision after coming to a finding that the inspector’s reasoning was not sufficiently clear.

It claims that the judge substituted his own reasoning for the inspector’s, which he was not entitled to do.

Giving the go ahead for a full appeal later this year, Lord Justice Tomlinson said: “I express no view on the ultimate likelihood of success of this challenge to the inspector’s reasons, still less do I express any view as to how ultimately the controversial point may be resolved in the event that the secretary of state is required to look at the matter afresh.”

To access all EGi news stories and commercial property data sign up for a free trial today, or visit the subscription options page to find out more.

A legal case that could substantially increase the government’s compensation bill for businesses relocated to make way for the 2012 Olympics Games is heading for the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Tomlinson today granted building group Rooff permission to appeal a High Court ruling against it last year. Rooff wants the Court of Appeal to quash a secretary of state for communities and local government decision that it claims means the the London Development Agency underpaid for its land at Carpenter’s Estate in Stratford, east London. Rooff claims that because of the regeneration being brought about by the development of the 500-acre Olympic Park in Stratford its land is suitable for a lucrative “landmark” development of mixed residential and business uses, as a key part of the regeneration of the area that was likely to take place. But Newham council refused Rooff a certificate for appropriate alternative development of the site, specifying that it was suitable for residential use. Then, in July 2009, the secretary of state rejected Rooff’s appeal against that decision under the Land Compensation Act 1961, on the basis of his inspector’s conclusion that, when the compulsory purchase order was launched on 16 November 2005, the only alternative development use for which planning consent would have been granted was B1 (business) and B2 (general industrial). Challenging that decision in the High Court last year, Rooff claimed that the inspector’s reasoning was “unintelligible”, “inadequate” and gave rise to a “substantial doubt as to whether the inspector erred in law in many respects”. Rejecting Rooff’s challenge last July, Mr Justice Blake found that while the inspector’s report lacked the sufficient clarity, it could not be challenged as irrational, illogical or insufficiently reasoned. Now Rooff claims that the judge erred in failing to quash the decision after coming to a finding that the inspector’s reasoning was not sufficiently clear. It claims that the judge substituted his own reasoning for the inspector’s, which he was not entitled to do. Giving the go ahead for a full appeal later this year, Lord Justice Tomlinson said: “I express no view on the ultimate likelihood of success of this challenge to the inspector’s reasons, still less do I express any view as to how ultimately the controversial point may be resolved in the event that the secretary of state is required to look at the matter afresh.” To access all EGi news stories and commercial property data sign up for a free trial today, or visit the subscription options page to find out more.