Image from Google Jackets

Norman and another v DTp

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1996] 24 EG 150-155 (6)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: LT 20 February 1996. The owners of a cottage (N) served a blight notice on the respondent authority (X) requiring them to acquire their interest in the property. N claimed that although the draft compulsory purchase order only covered the subsoil of the adjoining highway, the subsoil was part of their hereditament and therefore X had to acquire the whole property. X served a counternotice claiming that the hereditament did not include the highway subsoil. "Decision" X`s objection was not well founded. The subsoil was part of the hereditament. Accordingly, the blight notice was valid and X was required to acquire the cottage and the subsoil.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS55323 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 15757-1001

LT 20 February 1996. The owners of a cottage (N) served a blight notice on the respondent authority (X) requiring them to acquire their interest in the property. N claimed that although the draft compulsory purchase order only covered the subsoil of the adjoining highway, the subsoil was part of their hereditament and therefore X had to acquire the whole property. X served a counternotice claiming that the hereditament did not include the highway subsoil. "Decision" X`s objection was not well founded. The subsoil was part of the hereditament. Accordingly, the blight notice was valid and X was required to acquire the cottage and the subsoil.

Previous
Back to results
Next
Close