Plaintiffs issuing compulsory purchase order – Plaintiffs entering land – Defendant referring matter to Lands Tribunal for compensation to be quantified – Matter referred after expiry of six years – Whether defendant’s claim for compensation time-barred – When cause of action accrued – Whether reference to Land Tribunal was action to recover – Defendant’s claim time-barred
In March 1971 the defendant became the lessee of land bordering the Grand Union Canal under a 35-year lease. In December 1990 the plaintiffs made a compulsorily purchase order (the London Borough of Hillingdon Yiewsley By-Pass (Cherry Lane Roundabout to High Street Yiesley) Compulsory Purchase Order (No 1) 1980) (the compulsory purchaser order) which related to part of the defendant’s land. In March 1982 the plaintiffs served a notice to treat in respect of the defendant’s land and in April 1982 the plaintiffs served a notice of intention to enter. On April 19 1982 the defendant served a claimant’s claim in answer to the notice to treat. On April 26 1982 the plaintiffs entered and commenced “the Phase I Works” (the works). The works were completed in April 1984 and on May 11 1984 the carriageway opened. On March 29 1991 the freehold reversion of land and rights relating to the acquired land were conveyed to the plaintiffs by the British Waterways Board. On January 2 1992 the defendant’s claim relating to the works and further works was received and rejected by the by the plaintiffs. On October 25 1993 a further claim was submitted by the defendant and also rejected. On September 6 1995 the defendant made its reference to the Lands Tribunal. On December 12 1995 the registrar of the Lands Tribunal ordered that the issue of whether any claim for compensation by the defendant which arose from the exercise by the plaintiffs of their powers under the compulsory purchase order was barred as a result of the provisions of section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 by virtue of the fact that the defendant had not brought an action to recover compensation within six years of the date the plaintiffs had entered and taken possession of the land.
Held Judgment was given for the plaintiffs.
1. The defendant’s cause of action had arisen on April 26 1982 when the plaintiffs had entered the land pursuant to section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. It did not accrue when the Lands Tribunal determined the amount of compensation. Therefore, unless by reason of their conduct the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, the defendant was time barred and not entitled to bring an action to recover compensation.
2. The Lands Tribunal was a court of law and although it only quantified a claim for compensation, a reference to it was an action to recover compensation for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. Therefore a claim for compensation would not be time barred if it was referred to the Lands Tribunal within six years of the date on which the land had been entered.
Joseph Harper QC (instructed by the solicitor to Hillingdon London Borough Council) appeared for the plaintiffs; Neil King (instructed by Lawrence Tucketts) appeared for the defendant.
