Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Bernice Lake and others v. The Attorney General of Anguilla and others

Type of court
Others
Date
Apr 5, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Justice
Judge
Baptiste
Reference number
Claim No. AXAHCV 2003/0074
Language
English
Subject
Land & soil
Keyword
Expropriation Liability/compensation Property rights
Abstract
The claimants were the owners of several parcels of land in Anguilla. In July 2003 the Government of Anguilla took a decision to extend the Wallblake Airport. The extension necessitated the acquisition of 26 acres of land of the claimants. A declaration was made by the Governor to compulsorily acquire the said land. The claimants commenced proceedings in the High Court, contending, among others, that the works to be executed under the airport expansion project constituted impairment to their enjoyment of their property, their rights to privacy and to life and health. Besides that, the principles of assessment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act denied just and full compensation. Furthermore, they complained about the possibility of flooding of their land, noise pollution and the absence of an environmental impact study on the extraction of fill from a garbage dump. The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and concluded, inter alia, that in so far as the principles of assessment in the Act deemed land to be agricultural for the purpose of compensation, it violated the requirement in section 7 of the Constitution for the payment of adequate compensation, as there was no proper place for the principles of current market value. A fair balance had not been struck between the public interest in the airport expansion and the constitutional rights of the claimants because the design and scope of the works relating to the airport expansion and the proposed method of execution would have a disproportionate or excessive effect on the property rights of the claimants. Thus, the authorities were restrained from entering or remaining upon the lands in question and from taking any other action to the prejudice of the claimants. However, the claimants were not entitled to an award of exemplary damages as they had not established the facts necessary to satisfy such an award. The allegations of arbitrariness, irrationality or want of good faith had not been proved.
Full text
BerniceLakeetalvTheAG(Ang)etalecsc1563.htm