Hussain v. Salford City Council [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWLands LCA/7/2006, 10 August 2006. The claimant in this case claims compensation under the Housing Act 1985 S584A in respect of a demolition order made by the compensating authority. At the date of the making of the order, 9 June 2004, the claimant had a leasehold interest in part of the premises. The lease was for 5 years from 24 April 2004. The claimant occupied the premises for the purposes of a newsagent and convenience store. The compensating authority argued that the claimant had no case for compensation, interpreting S584A of the Act as stating that only the owner of an entire building due for demolition was entitled to compensation, not owners or leaseholders of part of such premises. "Held": it was decided that the wording in S602 of the Act stating that 'owner' includes a person holding the premises under a lease with an unexpired term in excess of 3 years clearly included Mr Hussain (the Claimant) and the County Council were ordered to pay compensation.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 136733-1001 |
[2006] EWLands LCA/7/2006, 10 August 2006. The claimant in this case claims compensation under the Housing Act 1985 S584A in respect of a demolition order made by the compensating authority. At the date of the making of the order, 9 June 2004, the claimant had a leasehold interest in part of the premises. The lease was for 5 years from 24 April 2004. The claimant occupied the premises for the purposes of a newsagent and convenience store. The compensating authority argued that the claimant had no case for compensation, interpreting S584A of the Act as stating that only the owner of an entire building due for demolition was entitled to compensation, not owners or leaseholders of part of such premises. "Held": it was decided that the wording in S602 of the Act stating that 'owner' includes a person holding the premises under a lease with an unexpired term in excess of 3 years clearly included Mr Hussain (the Claimant) and the County Council were ordered to pay compensation.