Image from Google Jackets

Moto Hospitality Ltd v Highways Agency [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWLands LCA/122/2005, 21 April 2006. Considers the claimant's entitlement to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for the diminution in value of its interest in the land. Claimant (M) operated a Motorway Service Area (MSA) at junction 10 on the M40 and claimed it was adversely affected by junction alterations carried out by the compensating authority (H). M's claim for compensation under the 1965 Act s10 was for £15.5m and was for both temporary and permanent loss. Two key issues were debated by the defendants. Firstly, that the loss M claims to have suffered resulted from the stopping-up of the slip roads did not constitute 'the works' for the purpose of the 1965 Act s10. Secondly, that M did not suffer particular damage greater than that suffered by the public. "Held": any reduction in the value of the land during the period of construction is compensatable provided that it was the result of obstructions to routes of access between the motorway and the MSA. On this basis, M was entitled to compensation under the 1965 Act s10.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 140293-2001

[2006] EWLands LCA/122/2005, 21 April 2006. Considers the claimant's entitlement to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for the diminution in value of its interest in the land. Claimant (M) operated a Motorway Service Area (MSA) at junction 10 on the M40 and claimed it was adversely affected by junction alterations carried out by the compensating authority (H). M's claim for compensation under the 1965 Act s10 was for £15.5m and was for both temporary and permanent loss. Two key issues were debated by the defendants. Firstly, that the loss M claims to have suffered resulted from the stopping-up of the slip roads did not constitute 'the works' for the purpose of the 1965 Act s10. Secondly, that M did not suffer particular damage greater than that suffered by the public. "Held": any reduction in the value of the land during the period of construction is compensatable provided that it was the result of obstructions to routes of access between the motorway and the MSA. On this basis, M was entitled to compensation under the 1965 Act s10.