LT 10 January 2001. The claimant (M) maintained some advertisement hoardings on a site occupied under licence from the British Railways Property Board which were removed after the land was acquired by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (T). M sought a disturbance payment under the Land Compensation Act 1973 s37 but the respondent (C), as successor to T, contended that no payment was due as M had had no interest acquired, had been displaced by a clause in the concession agreement which terminated its right to occupy and was not in lawful possession at the time of the displacement, whilst T had not been in possession of compulsory purchase powers at the time of displacement. It was held, however, that M was entitled to compensation on the following grounds: the fact that no interest of M's had been acquired was irrelevant because the provision existed to provide disturbance compensation for those having no interest requiring to be purchased; that the acquisition had ended the M's right to occupy the land; that the requirement was that M had been in lawful possession at the time of the agreement rather than the possession; that T possessed compulsory purchase powers; that there was no basis for the contention that M would not have been better off had T not acquired the land. Copy of the determination available at http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands/decisions/dec-lca-144-00.htm