Ford-Camber Ltd v Deanminster Ltd & Anor

Ford-Camber Ltd v Deanminster Ltd & Anor

None of the proposed amendments raised by the Claimant offered any reasonable prospect of success. The Authority's acquisition of the land was valid under section 104, Tesco was an 'other person' for disposal, the transaction was properly authorised, the fee issue was a public law point barred by delay, and the transaction was not a sham. Permission to amend was rightly refused.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ford-Camber Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Deanminster Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Grove Properties (Cardiff) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Application for Permission to Amend Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Statutory Powers, Compensation for Compulsory Purchase, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires Acts, Delay/laches
Property Law Administrative Law Compulsory Purchase Right of Way Statutory Powers Compensation for Compulsory Purchase Judicial Review Ultra Vires Acts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ford-Camber Limited

Claimant/appellant

Deanminster Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Grove Properties (Cardiff) Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Application for Permission to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority acquired the land within the meaning of section 104 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether Tesco was an 'other person' to whom the Authority could dispose of the land under section 103
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was properly authorised by the Authority's board

Ratio Decidendi

None of the proposed amendments raised by the Claimant offered any reasonable prospect of success. The Authority's acquisition of the land was valid under section 104, Tesco was an 'other person' for disposal, the transaction was properly authorised, the fee issue was a public law point barred by delay, and the transaction was not a sham. Permission to amend was rightly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend refused
  • No order as to costs specified in the judgment