Hillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd: ChD 12 Jun 1997

The Council had taken possession of the company’s land under compulsory purchase powers, but the company delayed its claim for compensation, and the Council now said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was indeed time barred. The cause of action for an entry under a compulsory purchase arose at the date of entry even though compensation not yet assessed. The assumption that no limitation period began to run until the amount of compensation had been agreed was incorrect.


Stanley Burnton QC J


Times 25-Jun-1997, [1998] 1 WLR 174


Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11, Limitation Act 1980 9


England and Wales


CitedTurner v Midland Railway Company 1911
No limitation period is applicable until the amount of the compensation has been agreed or determined. . .
CitedSwansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLondon Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
The company sought compensation for land taken under compulsory purchase powers by the defendants several years before. It now appealed against the defeat of its claim as time-barred.
Held: The appeal failed. The limitation period for a claim . .
CitedHalstead v Council of City of Manchester CA 23-Oct-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81379