§ 27. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Attorney-General if he will consider the effect of the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council dealing with the jurisdiction of our courts of law to question the validity of a compulsory purchase order where the order has been obtained by corrupt or fraudulent means; and if he will take steps to introduce legislation to deal with the situation disclosed by this decision.
§ 31. Sir F. Medlicottasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the recent judgment of the House of Lords on the jurisdiction of the courts to question the validity of a compulsory purchase order even when the order has been obtained by corrupt or fraudulent means; and if he will consider the introduction of legislation to deal with the unsatisfactory situation resulting from this decision.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)As I appeared in this case I am, naturally, aware of the terms of the decision. I do not think that it discloses any need for legislation at this stage.
§ Mr. HughesDoes the Attorney-General not realise that this decision discloses a wrong without a remedy? Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not taking urgent steps to see that the wrong is righted?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not agree that this discloses a wrong without a remedy. The Crown Won
§ Mr. HughesHas the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the judgments?
§ The Attorney-GeneralOf course I have read the judgments, and in my view they do not give rise to any need for any new legislation at present. There were some dicta delivered by a number of their Lordships about the possibility of bringing an action to quash a compulsory purchase order made in bad faith 1641 before the compulsory purchase order was confirmed, but the point at issue in that case was whether a compulsory purchase order could be challenged years after it had been made when the Statute provides that a challenge can only be made within six weeks.