Your client runs a business, say a hotel, that relies upon the presence of members of the public. Over the past two years, heavy work has being going on down the road, following a CPO made in respect of other property. With thoughts of claiming compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, your client complains that, while the work was in progress, the road and pavements leading to his property were badly obstructed, and considerable discomfort was caused by noise, dust and vibration.
Turning to the decision of the House of Lords in Wildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 80, the bottom line is that a claim can lie in respect of the first complaint, but not in respect of the second.
Cardinal to both conclusions is the rule, to be derived from case law going back to the early days of the railways, that no claim for (statutory) compensation lies unless the activity complained of: (a) falls within the immunity afforded by the statute authorising the work; and (b) would have been actionable under the general law if it had not been so immune.
The restricted access complaint was held to satisfy both conditions, as the obstructions would have amounted to a public nuisance but for the relevant statute, the important point being that it is no answer to a general law claim in public nuisance that the defendant had done all that he reasonably could have done to minimise the disturbance.
However, the discomfort complaint was incapable of fulfilling both conditions in any circumstances. There was something of a Catch-22. If the defendant council had, as it were, gone over the top, there would have been no statutory immunity. If, on the other hand, they had shown due consideration, they would have had a good answer to a claim in private nuisance, which is governed by well-known “give and take” principles applicable as between neighbouring property owners.
The case additionally affords valuable guidelines on the assessment of compensation for interference with access.
Your client runs a business, say a hotel, that relies upon the presence of members of the public. Over the past two years, heavy work has being going on down the road, following a CPO made in respect of other property. With thoughts of claiming compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, your client complains that, while the work was in progress, the road and pavements leading to his property were badly obstructed, and considerable discomfort was caused by noise, dust and vibration.
Turning to the decision of the House of Lords in Wildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 80, the bottom line is that a claim can lie in respect of the first complaint, but not in respect of the second.
Cardinal to both conclusions is the rule, to be derived from case law going back to the early days of the railways, that no claim for (statutory) compensation lies unless the activity complained of: (a) falls within the immunity afforded by the statute authorising the work; and (b) would have been actionable under the general law if it had not been so immune.
The restricted access complaint was held to satisfy both conditions, as the obstructions would have amounted to a public nuisance but for the relevant statute, the important point being that it is no answer to a general law claim in public nuisance that the defendant had done all that he reasonably could have done to minimise the disturbance.
However, the discomfort complaint was incapable of fulfilling both conditions in any circumstances. There was something of a Catch-22. If the defendant council had, as it were, gone over the top, there would have been no statutory immunity. If, on the other hand, they had shown due consideration, they would have had a good answer to a claim in private nuisance, which is governed by well-known “give and take” principles applicable as between neighbouring property owners.
The case additionally affords valuable guidelines on the assessment of compensation for interference with access.
