Hempcomp Ltd v Birmingham CC [electronic resource]
Hempcomp Ltd v Birmingham CC [electronic resource]
- 2008
ACQ/12/2006 AND ACQ13/12/2006 9 April 2008. Application for adjournment in a compulsory purchase case was rejected after the applicant was found to have a history of attempting to delay the process unecessarily. Appellant (H)'s request for £500 000 in respect of two properties was rejected and figures closer to £70 000 for each of the properties were payable by the county council (B). H had arrived at his sum through unfit comparable valuations with local properties that had been sold at later dates than his properties and differed materially. In addition to this, the properties purchased by B were uninhabitable and not fit for mortgage purposes and so they were valued using the residual method. In addition to this, there were serious flaws in his expert statement and several points had been put forward without appropriate supporting evidence. H was ordered to pay both his costs and the cost of the local authority.
Advanced
HEMPCOMP LTD V BIRMINGHAM CC
BIRMINGHAM (CITY ROAD LADYWOOD) PART II HOUSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 1999
BIRMINGHAM (MONUMENT ROAD EDGEBASTON) PART II HOUSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 1999
COMPULSORY PURCHASE (VESTING DECLARATIONS) ACT 1981
EMSLIE AND SIMPSON LTD V ABERDEEN DC (NO 2)
ESSEX COUNTY SHOWGROUND GROUP V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
GARROD V LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
HOUSING ACT 1985 S17
PURFLEET FARMS LTD V SOS FOR TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
SNOOK & ORS V SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL
England and Wales--1543-
ACQ/12/2006 AND ACQ13/12/2006 9 April 2008. Application for adjournment in a compulsory purchase case was rejected after the applicant was found to have a history of attempting to delay the process unecessarily. Appellant (H)'s request for £500 000 in respect of two properties was rejected and figures closer to £70 000 for each of the properties were payable by the county council (B). H had arrived at his sum through unfit comparable valuations with local properties that had been sold at later dates than his properties and differed materially. In addition to this, the properties purchased by B were uninhabitable and not fit for mortgage purposes and so they were valued using the residual method. In addition to this, there were serious flaws in his expert statement and several points had been put forward without appropriate supporting evidence. H was ordered to pay both his costs and the cost of the local authority.
Advanced
HEMPCOMP LTD V BIRMINGHAM CC
BIRMINGHAM (CITY ROAD LADYWOOD) PART II HOUSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 1999
BIRMINGHAM (MONUMENT ROAD EDGEBASTON) PART II HOUSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 1999
COMPULSORY PURCHASE (VESTING DECLARATIONS) ACT 1981
EMSLIE AND SIMPSON LTD V ABERDEEN DC (NO 2)
ESSEX COUNTY SHOWGROUND GROUP V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
GARROD V LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
HOUSING ACT 1985 S17
PURFLEET FARMS LTD V SOS FOR TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
SNOOK & ORS V SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL
England and Wales--1543-