Hillman v Beverley BC
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 14 EG 137Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 October 1990. The appellant (H) appealed against a LT decision under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 Rule 2 and s9. Appeal under section 9 was discounted by the court as irrelevant. H owned a property subject to a demolition order . After acquiring the house under compulsory powers, the council (B) demolished the house and H received site value compensation which he now disputed. H contended that the house under a demolition order may still have commanded a higher value with the possibility of the order`s being revoked. The LT`s decision was upheld however, as revocation of demolition order seemed to be "very remote".| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42506 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 37338-1001 |
CA 16 October 1990. The appellant (H) appealed against a LT decision under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 Rule 2 and s9. Appeal under section 9 was discounted by the court as irrelevant. H owned a property subject to a demolition order . After acquiring the house under compulsory powers, the council (B) demolished the house and H received site value compensation which he now disputed. H contended that the house under a demolition order may still have commanded a higher value with the possibility of the order`s being revoked. The LT`s decision was upheld however, as revocation of demolition order seemed to be "very remote".