A compulsory purchase order to make room for Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium was granted 'without law' according to representatives of the last firm standing in the way.

Archway Sheet Metal Works' High Court challenge against a CPO granted by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles last year began today at the High Court.

Representing the firm, Christopher Lukkart-Mummary QC, said a compulsory purchase order to forcibly move them from the site of a proposed new stadium was granted "without law".

Mr Lukkart-Mummary used the validity of the planning permission, upon which CPO was granted, as the main thrust of his attack.

Archway, run by the Josif family, owns two plots of land to the north of Paxton Road, Tottenham, which sit on what would be the centre circle at the new stadium.

The firm is refusing to accept the decision to force them to move.

Mr Lukkart-Mummary also pointed out apparent changes to Spurs’ original plans for the stadium, including increasing the capacity of the stadium to 60,000 and increased use of commercial spaces, as possible reasons to overturn the decision.

During the evidence given to judge Mr Justice Dove, it was also revealed that the club had not consulted English Heritage on changes to plans for listed buildings that fall within the site.

Mr Lukkart-Mummary also used the period in which the club flirted with the idea of moving to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, as well as the "mystery" surrounding a naming rights sponsor, in an attempt to undermine the validity of the CPO.

He said of Haringey Borough Council's decision to grant planning permission: “If the council authority had resolved to grant a CPO conditional upon certain plans that were subsequently changed, it is misdirection.

"The evidence demonstrates clear intention to make changes to the scheme with specific dates in mind.

"The relevance of this is that the Secretary of State is clearly not being informed of relevant up to date material.

"There is evidence of clear intention to implement a scheme that has quite different viability considerations from the original agreement.”

Mr Lukkart-Mummary concluded by saying that if the changes to the scheme are significant enough that the Secretary of State for planning may change his mind then the CPO is invalid.

Stephen Whale QC, representing the Treasury Solicitors department and Secretary of State, strongly refuted these claims when he began his evidence.

He said: “I don't accept the proposition that planning permission is not subject to the assumption of validity. In short, my Lord, there is no ground of challenge on the validity.

“There is a degree of artificiality about the complaints being made about the preconditions for the making of the CPO.

“This has not been a case of the Secretary of State taking this case lighlty and reaffirming his earlier decision upon review. He took it terribly seriously.

“Having considered it carefully he has concluded that he would make the same decision again today, which strikes at the articial nature of some of the complaints.”

Mr Whale will continue his evidence tomorrow before barristers representing Haringey Borough Council and Tottenham Hotspur FC address the court.