A1P1 and property rights in the Supreme Court again

25 June 2013 by

shapeimage_1-1Cusack v. London Borough of Harrow  [2013] UKSC, 19 June 2013 read judgment 

This is the tale of how a solicitor from Harrow ended up litigating about his off-street parking in the Supreme Court – and reached for Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, by way of a second string to his bow. Not his choice, as he had won in the Court of Appeal on other grounds. But his failure on the point reminds us that in the majority of cases A1P1 is a difficult argument to bring home.

Mr Cusack had been parking his car in front of his premises since the late 1960s. He got temporary planning permission for his offices in 1973, but hung on when this expired and got established planning rights in 1976.

Things started to go wrong for him when in January 2009, when the highway authority wrote to him saying that the movement of vehicles over the footway caused danger to pedestrians and other motorists. In March 2009 he was told that the council were planning to erect barriers stopping him from using his parking space. He began proceedings in the county court for an injunction to prevent the erection of these barriers. Judge McDowall and on appeal Maddison J found in favour of the council, but their decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeal.

The Council had got itself into a muddle about the powers it wished to use in respect of Mr Cusack, but eventually plumped for section 80 of the Highways Act 1980, instead of section 66(2). Why did it matter? Because the latter came with compensation and the former did not.

Much of the leading judgment of Lord Carnwath considers the planning and highways legislation. He concludes that on a natural reading of the sections the Council could choose which section it wished to rely on – subject to the A1P1 point.

The issue then became whether the closure of Mr Cusack’s access without compensation under section 80 was compatible with A1P1.

Mr Cusack’s argument was beguilingly simple. Use of section 80 to deprive him of vehicular access to his own property and the right to park on his own hard-standing, without any compensation, would be a breach of A1P1, which can be avoided by use of section 66(2) to achieve the same end. The Council could thus avoid a breach by using the other section and paying compensation.

Well-established ECtHR case law makes it clear that there is a material distinction in A1P1 terms between the “deprivation of possessions”, and the “control of the use of property.” It was argued that Mr Cusack’s common law right of access to the highway was deprivation of a possession if it were so, the absence of a right to compensation will only be justified in exceptional circumstances. His fallback was that if this were a control of his property rights, albeit lawful and in the general interest, the council had not discharged its onus of showing the proportionality of the interference.

Lord Carnwath had little trouble in dispatching the first argument to the boundary: [37]

I say at once that I see no basis for his reliance on the second rule. Mr Cusack has not been deprived of any property. [Counsel] was unable to point us to any support in the Strasbourg cases for treating a restriction on the form of access as a deprivation of a possession under that rule. On the other hand…..it falls clearly within the third rule as a control of his property. Accordingly, it is in that context that its compatibility with the Convention right must be considered.

The starting point for the consideration of the cases on the third rule was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v Bridgend County Borough Council [2012] QB 512 – another leading judgment of Carnwath LJ and see my post. As he pointed out in that judgment

the issue of proportionality can be expanded into the following question: ‘whether the interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions struck the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the public and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, or whether it imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on them.

Thomas was a land compensation case where the ordinary meaning of the statute led to a truly bizarre outcome. But it referred to a Polish ECtHR case, Bugajny, about estate roads which was apparently supportive of Mr Cusack’s case.

Lord Carnwath was unpersuaded, and also blunt about the Strasbourg authority. In a warning shot about the over-use of A1P1 in planning cases, he noted

….I regard Bugajny as a somewhat extreme example of the use of A1P1 to override the decisions of the national authorities. The court effectively substituted its own views for that of the national courts as to what was a public road under national law. However, it is relevant that the present case, like Bugajny, falls in the general field of land development and town planning, in which the state is allowed a wide margin of appreciation. As that case also shows, the issue of proportionality is not hard-edged, but requires a broad judgment as to where the “fair balance” lies. It is not in my view confined to cases of the “truly bizarre” (as in Thomas), or what might be termed irrationality or “Wednesbury unreasonableness” in domestic law.

But the question was not a free-floating one – proportionality must be assessed principally by reference to the balance drawn by section 80, allowing for the wide margin of appreciation allowed to the national authorities. There may be room for argument as to where the line in section 80 should have been drawn, but the compatibility of the section is not the issue.

Given the availability of the power as a legitimate means of controlling use of a private access in the public interest, its use in the present circumstances was in my view neither an abuse of the council’s powers nor outside the boundaries of the discretion allowed by the Convention.

Lord Neuberger put it thus:

A1P1 does not carry with it a general rule that, where the state seeks to control the use of property, and could do so under two different provisions, which have different consequences in terms of compensation, it is obliged to invoke the provision which carries some (or greater) compensation.


I have posted about a number of successful A1P1 claims recently – all 6 on the list below fall into that category. But the courts are still wary about intruding too far into the balance struck by the legislature, in the absence of some obvious injustice flowing to the particular applicant.  So this case was really won or lost on the question of statutory construction advanced by Mr Cusack which had attracted the Court of Appeal – A1P1 was unlikely to save the day if that failed.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. John Allman says:

    Looking at Street View, and from north to south on that side of the road, the white house next to mobility world, and most forecourts to the north, have access. Mobility World doesn’t. Law Partnership does have access, as does Harrow International Communications Centre. Then there’s Drummond Cry Cleaners, and Maple Estate Agents, which don’t have access. Then there’s Mr Cusack’s place, with its pretty window boxes, which soon won’t have access. Then every property has access, or could if the owners demolished fences, up to and including the car wash.

    I cannot fathom the council’s motives, in picking on this one address, after forty years of not caring. That’s a more interesting question than the one about A1P1 that the court settled. Proportionate to WHAT legitimate aim exactly was this sudden change of heart claimed to be? There’s neither rhyme nor reason, in whom the council allows to park, and whom it blocks, nor why, in 2009, after forty years, they suddenly decided to migrate Mr Cusack from the group of the population it leaves in peace, to the group of the population it picks on.

    Street View is much more interesting than the judgment. I wonder if the courts bothered to find out how the land lies. Isn’t proportionality supposed to be fact sensitive?

  2. Miguel Cubells says:

    My local council has removed the 50% council tax reduction for empty properties and has replaced this reduction with a 50% increase (50% increase from the nominal charge). Hence in effect the council tax charge has increased some 200% (50% reduction to 50% increase = a 200% increase) for people who own empty properties. The extra monies received by the council in respect of the above are not being placed in any schemes to bring empty properties to a habitable state, the monies are going to other areas not related to housing. In the above regard:

    [1] Is it potentially a breach of Article 14 to single out such a group (empty property owners) in respect of them being discriminated against?

    [2] Has the council potentially satisfied or not the proportionality aspect in respect of the in effect 200% council tax increase?

    [3] If the council did not contact the empty home owners prior to finalising matters, would this be a breach of procedure?

    [4] Could A1P1 be relevant in respect of the above?

    Miguel Cubells

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: