The mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing, does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. The position would be different if the provisions of the enactment were such that they would only be workable if the law was as Parliament supposed it to be. The date of entry into land under a compulsory purchase is what fixes the date for the assessment of compensation. No question regarding interest arose because ‘the claimants had been allowed to remain in possession on the terms that they claimed no interest on the compensation and paid no rent.’ The House considered the possibility of prospective rulings, rulings which would take effect only as to the future.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: ‘The word ‘compensation’ would be a mockery if what was paid was something that did not compensate.’
Lord Reid said: ‘We cannot say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something different tomorrow. If we decide that [the existing rule] is wrong we must decide that it always has been wrong, and that would mean that in many completed transactions owners have received too little compensation. But that often happens when an existing decision is reversed.’
and ‘These provisions do show that Parliament (or the draftsman) must have thought that the law was that compensation was assessable on the basis of value as at the date of notice to treat. But the mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. This has been stated in a number of cases including Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall, O’Mahoney and Co Ltd [1952] AC 401. No doubt the position would be different if the provisions of the enactment were such that they would only be workable if the law was as Parliament supposed it to be. But, in my view, all that can be said here is that these enactments would have a narrower scope if the law was found to be that compensation must be assessed at a date later than that of the notice to treat.’
Reid L, Lord Donovan, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilbeforce
[1970] AC 874, [1969] 3 All ER 172
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall, O’Mahoney and Co Ltd HL 1952
A court is not prevented from interpreting the common law by an Act of parliament being based upon a different view. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Cited – BP Oil UK Ltd v Kent County Council CA 13-Jun-2003
BP sought compensation after its land had been acquired compulsorily. The council said its claim was time barred. BP appealed from the Lands Tribunal, saying an agreement with the Authority had kept its claim alive.
Held: The fact of entry did . .
Cited – Halstead 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 . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Land, Damages
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.182109