Mersey Docks and Harbour Co v Merseyside Development Corporation
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; 27(5) June 1987, 97-120(24)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: LT 20 March 1987. Compensation claim by plaintiff(P) for docklands and buildings in Liverpool on their transfer to the Merseyside Development Corporation (MDC). The dispute arose over the correct price payable for the South Docks. During 1978/79 negotiations between P and Merseyside CC resulted in a tentative agreement, known as Version 4, for the grant by P of a 150-year lease with option to purchase after 1 January 1995. The MDC was established in 1981 to regenerate the dock areas. Negotiations lapsed. In his primary valuation P`s surveyor assumed that if there had been no compulsory acquisition the vendor would have been P and would have granted a lease to the county council in the terms of Version 4 in November 1980, and the hypothetical purchaser would have bid for the reversion in July 1981; he arrived at a valuation of 3.15m. His alternative valuation of 2.82m was based on the fact that the Version 4 lease was not entered into and that the hypothetical purchaser was a speculat| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37940 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 7719-1001 |
LT 20 March 1987. Compensation claim by plaintiff(P) for docklands and buildings in Liverpool on their transfer to the Merseyside Development Corporation (MDC). The dispute arose over the correct price payable for the South Docks. During 1978/79 negotiations between P and Merseyside CC resulted in a tentative agreement, known as Version 4, for the grant by P of a 150-year lease with option to purchase after 1 January 1995. The MDC was established in 1981 to regenerate the dock areas. Negotiations lapsed. In his primary valuation P`s surveyor assumed that if there had been no compulsory acquisition the vendor would have been P and would have granted a lease to the county council in the terms of Version 4 in November 1980, and the hypothetical purchaser would have bid for the reversion in July 1981; he arrived at a valuation of 3.15m. His alternative valuation of 2.82m was based on the fact that the Version 4 lease was not entered into and that the hypothetical purchaser was a speculat