000			02080cad a22003015a 4500
001			L145301
008			080924e20080211xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u145301
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aWelford v Transport for London _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWLands ACQ_26_2007, 11 February 2008. 'Entry onto' and 'possession' of land are not the same thing. The court had to determine whether a claim for compensation was allowed under the Limitation Act 1990. The claimant (W) owned land subject to a compulsory purchase order by an acquiring authority (T). T claimed that documentary evidence it had submitted was sufficient to show that it entered onto and took possession of the land under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 S11(1) and Limitation Act 1980 S9 in November 2000, and that W's claim was made outside the six year time limit and was therefore statute barred. W countered that the 1965 Act differed between 'enter' and 'take' possession, and that T had not satisfied both criteria. Held: claimant's claim allowed. There was insufficient evidence of entry, and in the absence of formal surrender of possession by the owner, no evidence that T had taken possession of any part of the land.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCOMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 1965
650	2	4	_aLIMITATION ACT 1980
650	2	4	_aHILLINGDON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V ARC LTD
650	2	4	_aBURSTON V WANTAGE RDC
650	2	4	_aSTANDISH V LIVERPOOL CORN
650	2	4	_aFARMER V WATERLOO AND CITY RAILWAY CO
650	2	4	_aROLLS V ST GEORGES, SOUTWARK
650	2	4	_aSIMMONDS V KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
650	2	4	_aBIRMINGHAM CORPN V WEST MIDLAND BAPTIST (TRUST) ASSOCIATION INC
650	2	4	_aR V BAISILDON DISTRICT COUNCIL, EXP MARTIN GRANT HOMES LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND COMPENSATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2008/ACQ_26_2007.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80769 _d80769