There had been a substantial delay of many years after the order for compulsory purchase was made, with a substantial increase in value after the service of the notice to treat.
Held: The physical condition of the reference land and its surroundings is to taken as at the valuation date.
Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest said: ‘The word ‘compensation’ would be a mockery if what was paid was something that did not compensate.’ and
‘Apart from severance and injurious affection there is only one subject for compensation – the value of the Land (see Inland Revenue Comrs v. Glasgow and South Western Ry. Co (1887) 12 App. Cas. 315). But it was convenient and it became customary to value separately the market value of the land and the other elements comprised in its value to the owner and then to add these together to obtain the total value to the owner. And it further became customary to add 10 per cent. in respect of the expropriation being compulsory. Rule (1) abolished this addition of 10 per cent.’
Lord Reid said: ‘These provisions do show that Parliament (or the draftsman) must have thought that the law was that compensation was assessable on the basis of value as at the date of notice to treat. But the mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. This has been stated in a number of cases including Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall, O’Mahoney and Co Ltd [1952] AC 401. No doubt the position would be different if the provisions of the enactment were such that they would only be workable if the law was as Parliament supposed it to be. But, in my view, all that can be said here is that these enactments would have a narrower scope if the law was found to be that compensation must be assessed at a date later than that of the notice to treat.’ and
‘No stage can be singled out as the date of expropriation in every case. Sometimes possession is taken before compensation is assessed. Then it would seem logical to fix the market value of the land as at that date and to take actual consequential losses as they occurred then or thereafter, provided that the dispossessed owner had acted reasonably. But if compensation is assessed before possession is taken, taking the date of possession can I think be justified because then either party can sue for specific performance and the promoters obtain a right to the land, as if there had been a contract of sale at that date.’
Judges:
Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Donovan
Citations:
[1970] AC 874, [1969] 3 All ER 172
Statutes:
Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Horn v Sunderland Corporation CA 1941
Compulsory Purchase Damages limited to Actual Loss
Rule (6) was designed to preserve the effect of the 19th Century case-law under the 1845 Act, by which personal loss caused by the compulsory acquisition was treated as part of the value to the owner of the land: ‘the owner in a proper case – that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Land
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.470884