Image from Google Jackets

Wagstaff and another v Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (9921) 29 May 1999, 137-148(12)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: LT 12 February 1999. W and another were owner and lessee respectively of Bourne Bridge Service Station, Abington. Until a road improvement scheme, access was gained from the A505 and the A11. As part of the improvements. The A505 outside the service station was closed, and there was no direct access from the new section of the A11. Orders were made to stop up existing highways and construct new roads under Highways Act 1980 s14. Due to a fall in business the service station closed in January 1996. Although the works were carried out under a compulsory purchase order, no land was required from the claimants. Decision, loss arising from the use of the new road system was too remote to found a claim because it was not properly attributable to such obstruction. No claim for compensation could be based on the obstruction of the A11 which was not on land included in the compulsory purchase order.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS60629 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 93764-1001

LT 12 February 1999. W and another were owner and lessee respectively of Bourne Bridge Service Station, Abington. Until a road improvement scheme, access was gained from the A505 and the A11. As part of the improvements. The A505 outside the service station was closed, and there was no direct access from the new section of the A11. Orders were made to stop up existing highways and construct new roads under Highways Act 1980 s14. Due to a fall in business the service station closed in January 1996. Although the works were carried out under a compulsory purchase order, no land was required from the claimants. Decision, loss arising from the use of the new road system was too remote to found a claim because it was not properly attributable to such obstruction. No claim for compensation could be based on the obstruction of the A11 which was not on land included in the compulsory purchase order.