The claimants purchased land. The local search did not reveal a planning permission which affected the value of the property by applying an occupancy condition. He claimed compensation. Compensation was eventually agreed to be payable, but the parties did not agree as to the time at which the damage was to be assessed. At the date when the defect was discovered, or at the date of the compensation hearing.
Held: The compensation claim was equivalent to a claim in tort. The assessment of the damage would usually be as at the date it was suffered. Because they had not known of the restriction, the claimants had however invested money in the property which would now be lost. They alleged the result was similar to the situation of losses arising from a negligent survey. The ‘date of breach rule’ has exceptions. The position in tort and in contract should be the same. Here, the normal order would prove unjust to the claimants. The claimant had acted reasonably in delaying, in order to try to get the restriction lifted, and his damages would be calculated as at the later date, the date of the hearing.
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mance and Sir Martin Nourse
Citations:
Times 30-Aug-2002, Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1131
Links:
Statutes:
Local Land Charges Act 1975 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Philips v Ward CA 1956
The Plaintiff had relied on a negligent survey to purchase a substantial Elizabethan property and land. The report did not mention that the timbers of the house were badly affected by death watch beetle and worm so that the only course left to him . .
Cited – Perry v Sidney Phillips and Son CA 1982
In 1982 the surveyor failed to observe serious defects, including a leaking roof and a septic tank with an offensive smell. The plaintiff purchaser could not afford major repairs and executed only minor repairs himself. At the date of the trial the . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
Applied – Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick PC 20-Mar-2000
(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that . .
Cited – Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd CA 1952
Lord Justice Denning said: ‘It was also said that the damages were the result of the impecuniosity of the sellers and that it was a rule of law that such damages are too remote. I do not think there is any such rule. In the case of a breach of . .
Cited – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
Cited – Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd HL 1975
The issue was whether an English court was able to award damages in Sterling only.
Held: The House distinguished clearly between the substance of the debtor’s obligations and the effect of English procedural law when a debt in a foreign . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Damages, Local Government
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174449