Hughes and another v Doncaster MBC
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1991) 2 WLR 16-26(11)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: HL 13 December 1990 Appeal by the council (D) which had compulsorily acquired the freehold land and premises owned by Hughes (H) on which the business of rag and scrap metal merchants had been carried out. When the land was acquired, H had to close down their business and applied to LT for a determination of the amount of compensation payable to them and claimed, inter alia, compensation for disturbance of business . LT held, inter alia, that the use on part of the land ("blue land") which had started before 1963 was an " established use " and was immune from enforcement proceedings, but the remainder of the land ("green land") remained liable to enforcement proceedings requiring its discontinuance. Compensation for disturbance was not part of value of the land under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 r4 and that the use of the blue land being immune from enforcement was not "contrary to law" within rule 4 and compensation was awarded accordingly. On appeal, CA held that under rule 4 comp| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS43942 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 44383-1001 |
HL 13 December 1990 Appeal by the council (D) which had compulsorily acquired the freehold land and premises owned by Hughes (H) on which the business of rag and scrap metal merchants had been carried out. When the land was acquired, H had to close down their business and applied to LT for a determination of the amount of compensation payable to them and claimed, inter alia, compensation for disturbance of business . LT held, inter alia, that the use on part of the land ("blue land") which had started before 1963 was an " established use " and was immune from enforcement proceedings, but the remainder of the land ("green land") remained liable to enforcement proceedings requiring its discontinuance. Compensation for disturbance was not part of value of the land under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5 r4 and that the use of the blue land being immune from enforcement was not "contrary to law" within rule 4 and compensation was awarded accordingly. On appeal, CA held that under rule 4 comp