Access to the plaintiff’s motor repair business was interfered with by work to reconstruct a sewer. Whilst access was still possible it required a long detour and there was no physical interference with the entrance to the premises.
Held: If a private individual had interfered with access as the statutory authority had done then there would have been a good cause of action for the loss suffered by the business. The court considered the liability of an authority executing works under authority of the Act for damages for disturbance: ‘if a private individual had done what the defendants did in the present case the claimant would have had a good cause of action … .’.
It was submitted that so long as a local authority in exercising its powers under the Act provision did not create an obstruction greater in extent or for longer than was reasonably necessary for the proper carrying out of their duties, no claim would lie. Rejecting that submission, Parker J said: ‘This contention is in my judgment untenable. Harper v Hayden was not a decision which, despite what was said in it about the decision in Lingke’s case, decides anything more than that where an owner of premises adjoining a highway is conducting building works and, for the protection of the public, erects a hoarding which obstructs the highway for no longer than reasonably necessary, he commits no wrong. This is in accord with both Herrins and Lingke. To extend this to obstructions by local and other authorities in the exercise of statutory powers would be to deprive section 278 of all content. It would enable a Water Authority to close completely a street of shops for a year or more if it was reasonably necessary thus depriving shopkeepers of their livelihood for a year, and yet say that there was no right to compensation. A construction on the section leading to such a result would be to attribute to Parliament an intention which amounts almost to confiscation without compensation. I can attribute no such intention. Moreover, such a construction would be against the ordinary meaning of the words ‘common sense’ and ‘authority’. ‘
Judges:
Parker J
Citations:
(1979) 251 EG 669, (1979) 11 BLR 16
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Ocean Leisure Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant company owned property next to land which had been acquired to build a new bridge across the Thames. It sought compensation for disturbance to its business from the works.
Held: The state of the law was complicated and . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Damages
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.204686