The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The Council said that the company had been in default under section 106.
Held: There was nothing in the factors relied on in the courts below which required the words ‘in default’ to be limited to default under the 1984 Act. They were right in my view to hold that the authority had no defence in principle to the claim for compensation, not because (as they held) there was no default under the 1984 Act, but because it was not default by Stylus which led to the emergency action under section 78.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 50, [2016] 1 WLR 3059, [2016] WLR(D) 426, [2016] RVR 301, [2016] BLR 503, UKSC 2014/0159
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Building Act 1984 106
England and Wales
Citing:
At TCC – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council TCC 12-Apr-2013
Application for compensation under s.106 of the Building Act 1984 for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under s.78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The court rejected the defence, holding . .
At CA – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council CA 7-May-2014
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claim to compensation under the 1984 Act as tenants of a pier closed by the Authority. The Authority said that it had failed to comply with its leasehold obligations of repair, and was in default under . .
Cited – Hobbs v Winchester Corporation CA 18-Jun-1910
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was . .
Cited – Lingke v Christchurch Corporation CA 1912
The householder sought compensation under the Act, for the disturbance in the laying of a drain in the highway abutting the claimant’s house and furniture shop. Because of the constraints of the work site, excavated soil had been thrown up against . .
Cited – Neath Rural District Council v Williams QBD 1951
A watercourse became silted by natural causes and the local authority served an abatement notice on the landowner, who failed to respond, and when prosecuted relied on a proviso which excluded from liability ‘any person other than the person by . .
Cited – Granada Theatres Ltd v Freehold Investment (Leytonstone) Ltd CA 23-Mar-1959
The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed in its obligations of repair undertaken in the lease.
Held: Where the landlord was in default, a tenant may have a right to undertake the repairs itself, recovering the costs.
Jenkins LJ . .
Cited – Place v Rawtenstall Corporation 1916
The authority had served notice under the Act requiring the plaintiff to convert a pail closet on his premises into a water closet and to connect it to a sewer. He failed to comply, and the authority carried out the work themselves, but did so by . .
Cited – Clayton v Sale Urban District Council 1926
Action was brought by the Council in respect of an alleged statutory nuisance caused by flooding. Under section 94 of the 1875 Act they could serve an abatement notice on the person by whose ‘act default or sufferance’ the nuisance had arisen. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.567605