Roberts v John Roberts (Bexley) Ltd [2005] UKLands ACQ_100_2004 (9 August 2005)

Roberts v John Roberts (Bexley) Ltd [2005] UKLands ACQ_100_2004 (9 August 2005)

The claim by the second claimant for disturbance compensation is not inadmissible; entitlement to compensation for losses sustained by Hire Easy exists under section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 if losses satisfy causation and remoteness tests; occupation at vesting is not a prerequisite; lifting the corporate veil is unnecessary where statutory entitlement exists.

Citation
[2005] UKLands ACQ_100_2004
Parties
First Claimant: John Edward Roberts; Second Claimant: John Roberts (Bexley) Ltd; Acquiring Authority: Ashford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Purchase Compensation / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
preliminary issue determined in claimants' favour
Legal Topics
Disturbance Compensation, Corporate Veil, Pre Acquisition Losses, Land Compensation Act 1961, Land Compensation Act 1973 S 37
Compulsory Purchase Land Law Compensation Law Disturbance Compensation Corporate Veil Pre Acquisition Losses Land Compensation Act 1961 Land Compensation Act 1973 S 37

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Edward Roberts

First Claimant

John Roberts (Bexley) Ltd

Second Claimant

Ashford Borough Council

Acquiring Authority

Procedural Posture

Compulsory Purchase Compensation / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for disturbance compensation by the second claimant is inadmissible
  2. 2 Whether losses incurred prior to vesting date are recoverable
  3. 3 Whether lifting the corporate veil allows compensation for losses suffered by the company

Ratio Decidendi

The claim by the second claimant for disturbance compensation is not inadmissible; entitlement to compensation for losses sustained by Hire Easy exists under section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 if losses satisfy causation and remoteness tests; occupation at vesting is not a prerequisite; lifting the corporate veil is unnecessary where statutory entitlement exists.

Court Disposition

preliminary issue determined in claimants' favour

Orders

  • Claim by second claimant for disturbance compensation is not inadmissible.
  • Procedure for substantive hearing to be ordered.