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 unsatisfactory. Compensation was in fact payable, though by a circuitous route. There was no special rule applying to hoardings, and the claim succeded. The statutory power given to the local authority necessarily carried also a responsibility toward neighbouring land owners.
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Carnwath
 EWCA Civ 970, Times 02-Sep-2004
England and Wales
Cited – Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd CA 1938
The plaintiff had a hotel. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and . .
Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the . .
Cited – Clift and Another v Welsh Office CA 23-Jul-1998
Whilst it was settled law that no compensation was payable for temporary disturbance to neighbouring land by building works on land compulsorily purchased, as soon as that disturbance came to produce physical damage, compensation became payable. . .
Cited – Caledonian Railway Co v Walker’s Trustees 1882
The court considered the extent of the duty to compensate for disturbance of a business when land was compulsorily purchased. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The obstruction by the execution of the work, of a man’s direct access to his house or land, . .
Cited – Herring 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 – 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 – Rex v Jones 1811
(Year?) A land owner has the right to obstruct the highway for the purpose of repairing his house so long as the inconvenience is ‘necessarily’ so caused and it is not prolonged for an unreasonable time. . .
Cited – Leonidis 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 . .
Cited – Harper 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 . .
Cited – Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) v Birkenhead Corporation HL 1974
The House described the way that the 1845 Act continued to affect the calculation of compensation: ‘The relevant section of the Act of 1845 (section 68) has, over 100 years, received through a number of decisions, some in this House, and by no means . .
Appeal from – Ocean Leisure Ltd v Westminster City Council LT 31-Dec-2003
LT COMPENSATION – injurious affection – hoardings erected in street during construction works outside shop premises – preliminary issue – whether claim under Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s 10 valid – held . .
Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.199491