Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation: HL 1964

The plaintiff complained of an attempt by the defendant local authority to enforce in October 1958 a CPO made several years earlier. He obtained at first instance an injunction to restrain the local authority from proceedings on the basis of an increase in land values between times. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision.
Held: The appeal failed. Delay by the acquiring authority in acquiring the land is not a sufficient ground to disentitle it from proceeding to acquisition if it was based on good conscience unless those seeking the relief can establish bad faith or or that the owners or those seeking the relief have been placed in an unfair position because of the long period which has elapsed since the service of the notice to treat. However, where a body has a power of compulsory acquisition which is expressed or limited by reference to a particular purpose, then it is not legitimate for the body to seek to use the power for a different or collateral purpose.
Lord Evershed accepted that there might be circumstances where a court could interfere, such as where to permit the local authority to enforce its rights under the CPO would: ‘be against good conscience. In order to achieve such a result it seems to me that it would be necessary to show one or both of the following: that there had been on the part of the Corporation, something in the nature of bad faith, some misconduct, some abuse of their powers: that there had been on the part of Simpsons some alteration of their position – something must have been done or not have been done by them on the faith and in the belief that there would be a speedy acquisition of the North road site: in other words, that they had in some sense been put into an unfair position because of the long period which had elapsed since the service of the notice to treat’.
Lord Evershed
[1964] AC 1088
England and Wales
Appeal fromSimpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (No 1) CA 1962
The use of land purchased under compulsory powers for a different purpose was ultra vires, but did not undermine the original notice to treat. There was no reason not to use a compendious description of the range of purposes for which land was to be . .

Cited by:
CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
At HLSimpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation 1965
The paying party under an order for costs objected to the amount of leadig counsel’s fees.
Held: Pennycuick J discussed Rule 28(2) and the Smith -v- Bullins Case: ‘The words ‘or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.414938