Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 764, 26 July 2007. Considers the scope of the statutory right to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10. The appellant SoS appealed against the LT decision ([2006] EWLands LCA/122/2005, L140293) that respondent (M) was entitled to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for the injurious affection of its interest in certain land. M operated a Motorway Service Area (MSA) at junction 10 on the M40 and claimed it was adversely affected by junction alterations. The CA had to consider whether the 1965 Act s10 applied and whether M's alleged loss arising from the scheme was sufficiently proximate, direct and substantial. "Held": appeal allowed. While the 1965 Act s10 applied, M's claim had not been established in respect of the permanent stopping up orders which were part of the overall scheme.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 140296-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
[2007] EWCA Civ 764, 26 July 2007. Considers the scope of the statutory right to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10. The appellant SoS appealed against the LT decision ([2006] EWLands LCA/122/2005, L140293) that respondent (M) was entitled to compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s10 for the injurious affection of its interest in certain land. M operated a Motorway Service Area (MSA) at junction 10 on the M40 and claimed it was adversely affected by junction alterations. The CA had to consider whether the 1965 Act s10 applied and whether M's alleged loss arising from the scheme was sufficiently proximate, direct and substantial. "Held": appeal allowed. While the 1965 Act s10 applied, M's claim had not been established in respect of the permanent stopping up orders which were part of the overall scheme.