Wednesday 4th November 2020
There are two linked appeals by the Claimant (C) in TCC proceedings: one on the substantive order; the other on the costs order .
The issues are (a) whether a valuable commercial contract based on a JCT standard form (including a term preventing assignment without consent) qualifies as a possession and/or generates marketable goodwill as a possession for purposes of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR;
(b) the proper approach of the court under s. 7(5)(b) Human Rights Act 1998 to a determination as to length of the period which it considers equitable for the bringing of proceedings against a public authority claiming it has acted in a way which is made unlawful by s 6 (ie acting in a way which is incompatible with an ECHR right).
C is a supplier of photovoltaic panels. The background is the allegation by the C that a government proposal to reduce the subsidy payable under the Feed-in Tariff Scheme in respect of electricity generated by small-scale solar photovoltaic systems was an unlawful interference with the C’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.