AC-2024-LON-001877 - [2025] EWHC 2132 (Admin)

Mr Jones KC submitted that the inspector’s reasoning was confusing and appeared to rely on the Claimant’s complaints about the history of the Second Defendant’s mismanagement of JRP since 2005, rather than engaging with the question whether the use of compulsory purchase powers exceeded what was necessary or justified for the purpose of delivering the Scheme. The history of mismanagement of JRP was irrelevant to that question. On the Claimant’s own case, it was a factor relied upon to demonstrate the Second Defendant’s failure to negotiate with the Claimant, rather than the question now under consideration.

It was submitted that the inspector had not grappled with the Claimant’s offer to grant the Second Defendant the requisite licence to take possession of the Premises for a temporary period for the purposes of carrying out the refurbishment works. He had not given any explanation why acceptance of that offer would be insufficient to enable the Second Defendant to deliver the Scheme. As a result, the Claimant was substantially prejudiced, since she simply could not know why this ground of objection to the Order had been rejected.