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 the house and shop, with the result that access to the property (particularly for movement of furniture) was seriously impeded. The Act provided for the payment of compensation where any person sustained damage by reason of the exercise of powers under the Act.
Held: Compensation was payable. Referring to Herring, hoardings ‘are the sort of things that it is recognised that people may do in respect of the highway which although they physically obstruct, do not constitute an obstruction of the King’s highway for the purpose . . of civil action’ and ‘Putting it shortly, those obstructions which are absolutely necessary for the convenient and safe user of the highway are not deemed by the law to be obstructions of the highway for the purposes of indictment or for the purposes of the individual causes of action . .’ and ‘If there is a public right such as the user of a street and it is interfered with by an individual, that interference does constitute an actionable wrong . .’
Vaughan Williams LJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ, Buckley LJ
[1912] 3 KB 595
Public Health Act 1875
England and Wales
CitedHerring v Metropolitan Board of Works CCP 1865
All the main sewers in the metropolis were vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works by the Act, gaving it wide powers to maintain and improve them, and for that purpose to carry out works in streets and other land, ‘making compensation for any . .

Cited by:
CitedWestminster 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 . .
CitedHarper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .
CitedLeonidis v Thames Water Authority 1979
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 . .
CitedManolete 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 . .
CitedManolete 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 . .
CitedHastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.200685