Statutory undertakers — Construction of footbridges — Obstruction of highway by hoardings — Compensation for injurious affection — Whether claim excluded where obstruction no more extensive and remaining no longer than necessary — Whether special rule for hoardings — Appeal dismissed
The appellant council were the statutory undertakers under an order to construct two footbridges across the River Thames on either side of the Hungerford railway bridge. In connection with those works, two areas of highway were enclosed by hoardings in the immediate vicinity of a shop occupied by the respondent. The presence of the hoardings impeded access to the shop, and, for more than a year, one access was completely blocked.
The respondent made a claim to the Lands Tribunal for compensation for the damage to its trade. It claimed that its land had been injuriously affected by the works within the meaning of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. It was common ground that in order for the respondent to succeed in such a claim, it had to show that it would have had an action for damages in public or private nuisance but for the statute authorising the works. The respondent contended that the obstruction of the highway caused by the hoardings had amounted to a public nuisance. The council submitted that the partial obstruction of the highway did not give rise to a claim for compensation in circumstances where the hoardings were no more extensive and remained in place for no longer than was necessary for the works to be undertaken safely. The tribunal rejected that argument and awarded compensation. The council appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
There was no reason in principle to exclude from the ambit of section 10 a claim for special loss suffered by an owner due to the obstruction of an adjoining highway: Clift v Welsh Office [1999] 1 WLR 796 applied. The right of a private owner to obstruct the highway, so far as necessary and for a reasonable period, for the purpose of repairing its property could not be extended by analogy to the exercise of statutory powers, since the terms under which such powers were to be exercised would be determined by the statute: Leonidis v Thames Water Authority (1979) 251 EG 669 applied; Harper v Haden & Sons [1933] Ch 298 distinguished; Lingké v Christchurch Corporation [1912] 3 KB 595 and Herring v Metropolitan Board of Works (1865) 19 CB (NS) 510 considered. Hoardings were not subject to any special rule. The appropriation and separation by hoardings of two areas of highway would, in the absence of statutory authority, amount to a public nuisance, and the respondent would, as someone suffering special damage, have had a right of civil action. Accordingly, the tribunal had correctly allowed the respondent’s claim: Wildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council [2000] 2 EGLR 5 applied.
Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) appeared for the appellant; Barry Denyer-Green (instructed by Charles Russell, of Guildford) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister