International Ferry Traders Ltd v Adur DC
International Ferry Traders Ltd v Adur DC
- 2004
- Rating and Valuation Reporter [2004] RVR 65-76(12) .
[2004] EWCA Civ 288, 26 February 2004. Appeal against LT decision (LCA/131/2000, 13 June 2003) which held that claimant I was not entitled to compensation as an occupier of land under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s186(2) because its use of the land under licenses from the owner lacked the necessary qualities of permanence and exclusivity. I sought compensation in respect of a stop notice requiring it to cease using a site for the export of livestock. I challenged the dismissal of its claim on the grounds that: i) it was not necessary to have an interest in the conveyancing sense but argued that a right to use site was sufficient; ii) it fulfilled the occupation criteria; and iii) its rights under the licenses granted to it by the Port Authority amounted to a possession under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms First Protocol Art 1 as there had been an interference or deprivation of that possession by the stop notice. I's claim dismissed on appeal. CA upheld LT decision. View CA judgment at www.bailii.org. View LT decision at www.landstribunal.gov.uk.
INTERNATIONAL FERRY TRADERS LTD V ADUR DC
ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
STOP NOTICES
COMPENSATION
OCCUPATION
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S186(2)
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
[2004] EWCA Civ 288, 26 February 2004. Appeal against LT decision (LCA/131/2000, 13 June 2003) which held that claimant I was not entitled to compensation as an occupier of land under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s186(2) because its use of the land under licenses from the owner lacked the necessary qualities of permanence and exclusivity. I sought compensation in respect of a stop notice requiring it to cease using a site for the export of livestock. I challenged the dismissal of its claim on the grounds that: i) it was not necessary to have an interest in the conveyancing sense but argued that a right to use site was sufficient; ii) it fulfilled the occupation criteria; and iii) its rights under the licenses granted to it by the Port Authority amounted to a possession under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms First Protocol Art 1 as there had been an interference or deprivation of that possession by the stop notice. I's claim dismissed on appeal. CA upheld LT decision. View CA judgment at www.bailii.org. View LT decision at www.landstribunal.gov.uk.
INTERNATIONAL FERRY TRADERS LTD V ADUR DC
ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
STOP NOTICES
COMPENSATION
OCCUPATION
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S186(2)
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1