Hughes and Another v Doncaster MBC
Hughes and Another v Doncaster MBC
- 1990
- All England Law Reports (1990) 2 ALL ER 53-64(10) .
CA 10 November 1989. Appeal by council (D) from LT decision on the compensation payable for compulsory purchase of land. The claimants (H), scrap metal merchants , purchased the freehold interest in a plot of land. Some years later H acquired an adjoining plot to expand the business, which was carried on without planning permission, although part was immune from enforcement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s87(1) . A cpo was made on the land and H sought compensation for the value of the land and buildings and disturbance for the business which closed down as no suitable site was available. LT decided that 1) the Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 rule 4 did not invalidate H`s claims for disturbance under s5 rule 6, as compensation for disturbance was not part of "the value of land" within the meaning of rule 4; 2) the uses which were immune from enforcement could not be said to be "contrary to law" within the meaning of rule 4. Compensation was determined at £551,160 and D ap
CASE LAW
CA 10 November 1989. Appeal by council (D) from LT decision on the compensation payable for compulsory purchase of land. The claimants (H), scrap metal merchants , purchased the freehold interest in a plot of land. Some years later H acquired an adjoining plot to expand the business, which was carried on without planning permission, although part was immune from enforcement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s87(1) . A cpo was made on the land and H sought compensation for the value of the land and buildings and disturbance for the business which closed down as no suitable site was available. LT decided that 1) the Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 rule 4 did not invalidate H`s claims for disturbance under s5 rule 6, as compensation for disturbance was not part of "the value of land" within the meaning of rule 4; 2) the uses which were immune from enforcement could not be said to be "contrary to law" within the meaning of rule 4. Compensation was determined at £551,160 and D ap
CASE LAW