Ford-Camber Ltd v Deanminster Ltd & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 458 (24 May 2007)

Ford-Camber Ltd v Deanminster Ltd & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 458 (24 May 2007)

The Authority's acquisition of the land was valid under section 104 of the 1980 Act as it obtained the right to legal title; Tesco was an 'other person' for the purposes of section 103; the proposed amendments to the claim were unarguable or, where public law issues were raised, were not appropriately brought in these proceedings due to delay and the absence of the public body as a party.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 458
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 Refusal to Amend Claim in High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Compulsory Purchase, Statutory Compensation, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires Acts, Delay and Abuse of Process
Property Law Administrative Law Compulsory Purchase Right of Way Statutory Compensation Judicial Review Ultra Vires Acts Delay and Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 12 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 Refusal to Amend Claim in High Court (chancery Division)

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 land under section 103
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was ultra vires or improperly authorised

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority's acquisition of the land was valid under section 104 of the 1980 Act as it obtained the right to legal title; Tesco was an 'other person' for the purposes of section 103; the proposed amendments to the claim were unarguable or, where public law issues were raised, were not appropriately brought in these proceedings due to delay and the absence of the public body as a party.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend the claim refused
  • No order for trial on the proposed amendments