Nigel Elston Bishop & Anor v Transport for London

Nigel Elston Bishop & Anor v Transport for London

The claimants failed to prove that, but for the compulsory acquisition, their business would have generated profits to support their claimed remuneration. The loss of remuneration was not caused by the acquisition but by the unsustainable and insolvent state of their business. Only the proven personal expenditure on vacating the site was compensable.

Parties
Claimant: Nigel Elston Bishop; Claimant: Maxim Alexander Bishop; Respondent: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Acquisition Compensation Reference / Final Judgment With Addendum on Costs
Outcome
Claim for lost remuneration and other heads dismissed except for proven personal expenditure; costs substantially awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Compensation, Disturbance Claims, Loss of Remuneration, Valuation of Leasehold Interests, Costs Orders
Compulsory Acquisition Land Law Compensation Law Compulsory Purchase Compensation Disturbance Claims Loss of Remuneration Valuation of Leasehold Interests Costs Orders

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

Parties

Nigel Elston Bishop

Claimant

Maxim Alexander Bishop

Claimant

Transport for London

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compulsory Acquisition Compensation Reference / Final Judgment With Addendum on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of personal remuneration following compulsory acquisition of leasehold land
  2. 2 Whether claimants incurred compensable losses in vacating the land and disposing of equipment
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order given the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove that, but for the compulsory acquisition, their business would have generated profits to support their claimed remuneration. The loss of remuneration was not caused by the acquisition but by the unsustainable and insolvent state of their business. Only the proven personal expenditure on vacating the site was compensable.

Court Disposition

Claim for lost remuneration and other heads dismissed except for proven personal expenditure; costs substantially awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Claimants awarded £46,815 for expenditure in clearing the site.
  • Claim for lost remuneration dismissed.