Hall v Sandwell MBC

Hall v Sandwell MBC

The applicant's commercial use of the land was unlawful due to the enforcement notice, thus compensation for business loss was excluded by Rule 4 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961; no compensation was payable for commercial chattels, though a claim for personal chattels might be possible.

Parties
Applicant: Hall; Respondent: Sandwell MBC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Compensation, Enforcement Notices, Lawfulness of Land Use, Disturbance Claims, Chattels Compensation
Compulsory Acquisition Land Law Administrative Law Compulsory Purchase Compensation Enforcement Notices Lawfulness of Land Use Disturbance Claims Chattels Compensation

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

Parties

Hall

Applicant

Sandwell MBC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's commercial use of the land was lawful for compensation purposes
  2. 2 Whether Rule 4 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 excluded the claim for disturbance
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for chattels on the land

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's commercial use of the land was unlawful due to the enforcement notice, thus compensation for business loss was excluded by Rule 4 of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961; no compensation was payable for commercial chattels, though a claim for personal chattels might be possible.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed