The Appellant alleged that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in dealing with its complaint that the Interested Parties had “stifled” or “neutralised” the ability of landowners facing possible compulsory acquisition to present objections to and information about a scheme for which development consent was sought. It was said that this was the effect of the Heads of Terms that the Interested Party had agreed with various landowners before and during the examination into the two applications, which included non-objection and confidentiality clauses.

The Court of Appeal held that:

(i)    The use of non-objection clauses by the Interested Parties was legitimate in the circumstances of the case (with reference to principles derived from the cases of Taylor v Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company (1869-70) LR 4 HL 628; and Fulham Football Club v Cabra Estates (1993) 65 P&CR 284), and there was no conduct interfering with the administration of justice; and

(ii)    The Secretary of State lawfully addressed the complaint made about this matter.

The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal. A copy of the Judgment is available here.

In both the High Court and Court of Appeal Mark Westmoreland Smith KC and Jonathan Welch appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State, Hereward Phillpot KC and Hugh Flanagan appeared on behalf of the Interested Parties.