Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow LBC
Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; [2000] 40(6) RVR 235-242(8)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: HL 22 June 2000. The claimants W, owners of a hotel in Harrow, sought compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for noise, dust and vibration created by erection of hoardings, and restricted access to and from the public highway, all of which affected business. On appeal by W the CA considered whether the LT were right to decided that compensation was not payable where an interference to some legal right was not a direct interference to land or a right appurtenant to land. The CA decided that the LT had erred in deciding that compensation was payable when the interference was temporary. 'Held' the appeal was allowed to the extent of the question of temporary interference, but otherwise it was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS62597 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 107663-1001 |
HL 22 June 2000. The claimants W, owners of a hotel in Harrow, sought compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for noise, dust and vibration created by erection of hoardings, and restricted access to and from the public highway, all of which affected business. On appeal by W the CA considered whether the LT were right to decided that compensation was not payable where an interference to some legal right was not a direct interference to land or a right appurtenant to land. The CA decided that the LT had erred in deciding that compensation was payable when the interference was temporary. 'Held' the appeal was allowed to the extent of the question of temporary interference, but otherwise it was dismissed.