Land had been purchased under compulsory purchase powers. It had been subject to restrictive covenants in favour of neighbouring land which would have prevented the development now implemented. The question was how the compensation should be calculated, as the diminution to the neighbouring dominant land arising from building in breach of the covenant, or as the price which the dominant land-owner might have extracted for the release of the covenants.
Held: The compensation was to be calculated by diminution of value not by the expected price. Arguments that the compensation should reflect a share of any development value released on the servient tenement, were rejected.
Ind Summary 12-Apr-1993, [1993] 33 RVR 56, [1993] 2 EGLR 15, [1991] 62 P and CR 652
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 10, Law of Property Act 1925 84
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited – Bracewell v Appleby ChD 1975
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built.
Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the . .
Cited – Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeill Associates 1986
The claim was for interference with the plaintiff’s right to light.
Held: There is a need to approach infringements of easements of light with flexibility. The plaintiff’s subjective views as to the loss of light were not to the point. When . .
Cited – Kirby v Harrogate School Board CA 1896
The Board had power under the 1870 Act to acquire land to build school accommodation. The 1845 Act was to apply ‘with respect to the purchase of land’ for the purposes of the 1870 Act. The Board began to erect a school building on a site which they . .
Cited – Long Eaton Recreational Ground Co v Midland Railway 1902
. .
Cited – Metropolitan Board of Works v McCarthy HL 1874
Compensation was awarded to the owner of a warehouse near Blackfriars because the construction of the Victoria Embankment cut off his access across the public highway to a dock on the river. Lord Cairns LC quoted Thesiger QC as saying: ‘Where by the . .
Cited – SJC Construction v Sutton London Borough Council CA 1976
An appeal was mounted against the decision of the Lands Tribunal to allow the variation of a restrictive covenant under 84(1A)(b) only and not under 84(1A)(a). The tribunal had said that the word ‘substantial’ required applicants to show: ‘that the . .
Cited – Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Alwiyah Developments CA 1983
There was to be a development of six flats on land subject to a restrictive covenant. The developer began without a modification being sought. The benefit of the covenant was attached to adjoining land owned by the local authority, which they . .
Cited – Stoke-on-Trent City Council v W and J Wass Ltd CA 1988
The council had operated open markets on its land under statutory authority. In breach of the statute, the defendant operated a market on a different day, but within the excluded area. This was a nuisance actionable on proof of damage. The council . .
Cited – Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
Cited – Wrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
Cited – Wrotham Park Settled Estates v Maclean Homes (North London) ChD 1-Feb-1985
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.90627
