Land had been compulsorily purchased, and the compensation agreed, but after long delays in payment, not as to the calculation of interest. Held: Interest would be payable from the date of entry. The limitation period arose only once the amount of interest payable was agreed. [1997] EWCA Civ 2555, [1998] 1 All ER 33 Bailii … Continue reading Halstead v Council of City of Manchester: CA 23 Oct 1997
The limitation period for an action for wrongful trading under insolvency legislation is six years. Where the statute relied upon enables the court to give relief in monetary or non-monetary form the court should look to see what is actually claimed . .
The claimant applied for leave to bring an action for race discrimination nine years after the acts complained of. Leave was granted. The respondent said the tribunal should have heard the complaint first before deciding to extend time. Held: The discretion given was to act as the tribunal thought just and equitable. There was no … Continue reading Afolabi v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 24 Jan 2003
LRA Adverse Possession – Registration with possessory freehold title – Limitation of action – Alteration of the register – Meaning of alteration and rectification – Land Registration Act 2002 s 9(1)(c),(5), s 11(7), s 65, s 131, Sch 4 paras 1, 5, and 6 – Limitation Act 1980 s 15(1), (6), s 17, Sch.1, paras … Continue reading Thompson and Thompson v Hatherton Marina Limited: LRA 11 May 2007
COMPENSATION – limitation – Land Compensation Act 1973 – whether proceedings brought when notice of reference sent to Tribunal – whether notice of reference a nullity if failing to identify all persons interested in the land – held claim not statute barred – 1973 Act s 16, Limitation Act 1980 s 9(1), Lands Tribunal Rules … Continue reading O’Donovan v Manchester (Ringway) Airport Plc: UTLC 26 Aug 2009
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law of limitation was to be allowed for. Held: Money paid under a … Continue reading Inland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc: CA 4 Feb 2005
The court considered the application of CPR 3.9(1) to a decision relating to the relief of a sanction. Held: Lord Justice Brooke said: ‘It is essential for courts, exercising their discretion on an occasion like this, to consider each matter listed under CPR 3.9(1) systematically in the same way as it is now well known … Continue reading Bansal v Cheema: CA 2 Mar 2000
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden anally. Held: The common thread in all the cases has been the search to … Continue reading Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Feb 2001
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? The court considered also the relevance of personal considerations in planning matters. … Continue reading Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984
UTLC COMPENSATION – Procedure – substitution of Acquiring Authority as respondent to reference after expiry of limitation period – whether essential to validity of reference – jurisdiction to make order – applicable principles – ss.9 and 35, Limitation Act 1980 – s.25 Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rule 9(1), Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) … Continue reading William Hill Organization Ltd v Crossrail Limited: UTLC 17 Jun 2016
The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his solicitors. The first defendant said the claim was time barred. The six year period had … Continue reading Green v Eadie and Others: ChD 18 Nov 2011
