Decision Nº ACQ 132 1998. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 06-04-2000
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Peter H Clarke FRICS |
| Date | 06 April 2000 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | ACQ 132 1998 |
|
|
ACQ/132/1998
COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of leasehold shop and premises - jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal where acquisition alleged to be unlawful - whether proof of loss - goods left on premises after entry - mitigation - loss of profits and goodwill - whether compensation can be awarded for loss of quality of life - compensation of £66,675 awarded to Woodstock Engineering Ltd and £1,000 to Mr Crisa.
IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE
BETWEEN GIOVANNI F CRISA
and Claimants
WOODSTOCK ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
HIGHWAYS AGENCY Compensating
Authority
Re: 340 & 340a, Horn Lane, Acton, London W3
Tribunal Member: P H Clarke Esq FRICS
Sitting in public at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2 on 7 & 8 February 2000
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26
Mountgarret v Claro Water Board (1963) 15 P&CR 53
Advance Ground Rents v Middlesbrough Borough Council [1986] 2 EGLR 221
Salisbury (Marquess) v Great Northern Ry (1852) 17 QB 840; 117 ER 1503
Tiverton and North Devon Ry v Loosemore (1884) 9 App Cas 480
Grice v Dudley Corporation [1958] 1 Ch 329
Bonham - Carter v Hyde Park Hotel (1948) 64 TLR 178
Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation [1957] 1 QB 485
Director of Buildings & Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111
Taylor v Greater London Council (1973) 25 P&CR 451
Wrexham Maelor Borough Council v Macdougall [1993] 2 EGLR 23
Roberts v Coventry Corporation [1947] 1 All ER 308
Hughes v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 382
Cole v London Borough of Southwark [1979] 2 EGLR 162
Fox v P G Wellfair Ltd [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 514
Top Shop Estates Ltd v Danino [1985] 1 EGLR 9
Kentucky Fried Chicken (GB) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1978] 1 EGLR 139
Aquilina v Havering London Borough Council (1993) 66 P&CR 39
Swann v White [1996] 1 EGLR 199
Mr Giovanni F Crisa in person and, with leave of the Tribunal, for Woodstock Engineering Limited.
Mr David Forsdick of counsel, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, for the compensating authority.
DECISION OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
-
This is a reference to determine the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of a leasehold interest in a shop and premises in Horn Lane, Acton, West London.
-
Mr Giovanni F Crisa, the first claimant, appeared in person and, with leave of the Tribunal, for the second claimants, Woodstock Engineering Limited. He called Miss Gianna Crisa, his daughter and company secretary of Woodstock Engineering Limited, Mr John Donald Ives, Mr George Willinski, Mr Kenneth Arthur Watts and Mr Alan Kirtley. Mr Crisa lodged a witness statement but did not give oral evidence. Mr Forsdick, for the Highways Agency, raised no objection to references to this statement at the hearing. I have had regard to it but give it little weight due to Mr Crisa’s decision not to give oral evidence.
-
Mr David Forsdick of counsel appeared for the Highways Agency and called Mr Patrick McDara John Casey ARICS, district valuer of Ealing from 1991 to 1998.
FACTS
-
The parties have not prepared a statement of agreed facts. On the evidence I find the following facts.
-
On 31 July 1991 the Secretary of State for Transport made The A40 Trunk Road (Gypsy Corner Junction Improvement) Compulsory Purchaser Order (No.5) 1991. Plots 72A, 73 and 73A in this order were 340 and 340a Horn Lane (“the reference land”). Notice to treat and notice of entry were served in respect of plots 73 and 73A on 8 October 1991. Notice to treat was served in respect of plot 72A on 23 November 1992 with notice of entry on 1 March 1993. The acquiring authority, now the Highways Agency (“the Agency”), took possession of the land on 17 March 1995. This is the date of valuation.
-
The reference land is situated on the corner of Horn Lane and Western Avenue (A40) at Gypsy Corner in Acton, West London. It was the end property in a parade of shops built in the 1930s. It comprised a three-storey brick building with frontages to Horn Lane and Western Avenue, and an attached three-storey extension and enclosed yard, with access from a service road, containing a garage and store/workshop. The ground floor was occupied by Woodstock Engineering Limited (“Woodstock”) for the retail sale of car accessories, servicing of brake and clutch systems and research and development of braking systems. It comprised a shop, store and garage. The first and second floors were living accommodation occupied by Mr Crisa and his daughter. Access was from the yard. On the first floor were an entrance hall, two rooms (one used by Mr Crisa as an office and the other as a store) and kitchen. On the second floor were two bedrooms and a bathroom.
-
Under a lease dated 20 July 1982 the reference land, described as “shop dwellinghouse outbuildings and premises ... 340 Horn Lane”, was let for a term of 15 years from 24 June 1982 at an initial rent of £2,250 per annum. The lease contained rent reviews at the fifth and tenth years but these reviews were not implemented. The lease was assigned to Woodstock in August 1989 with Mr Crisa as guarantor. Mr Crisa and his daughter occupied the first and second floor living accommodation rent free and without a tenancy from Woodstock.
-
On 28 October 1998 Mr Crisa made a reference to this Tribunal claiming compensation of £700,000. Under nature of interest on the notice of reference Mr Crisa put “losses derived from the CPO No.5 1991 and subsequent entry on 17 March 1995.” Under the statutory provisions under which the reference was made Mr Crisa referred to Horn v Sunderland Corporation, section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and Protocol No.1 Article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This was accepted as a reference for the determination of compensation on compulsory purchase. At a pre-trial review on 19 October 1999 leave was given for Woodstock to be joined as second claimants.
ISSUES
-
The issues in this reference concern the compensation payable to the claimants for the acquisition of the reference land. Mr Crisa claims £560,000 made up as follows:-
Loss of foundry patterns £460,000
Loss of quality of life £100,000
£560,000
Woodstock claim £380,000 made up as follows:-
Loss of machine tools and equipment £ 12,000
Loss of tools £ 28,000
Loss of profits and benefits £240,000
Damages for interruption of trading £100,000
£380,000
It is not entirely clear whether these sums are claimed as damages for alleged unlawful eviction by the Agency or as compensation for compulsory purchase.
-
At the hearing Mr Crisa attempted to add a claim for loss of stock, omitted by oversight. This was not accurately quantified - it was put at £50,000 to £60,000. No evidence was put forward to prove this loss. Mr Crisa said that his accountant might attend the hearing and give evidence, although he did not in fact do so. I refused leave for this additional claim. There was a lack of supporting evidence; the late introduction of this claim was in breach of directions given at the pre-trial review in October 1999; no explanation was given for the oversight in not making the claim earlier.
-
The Agency, through the evidence of Mr Casey, offered compensation of £62,675 to Woodstock and £2,000 to Mr Crisa, made up as follows:-
Woodstock
Leasehold interest £15,000
Goodwill £40,000
Losses prior to entry £ 6,000
Surveyors’ and accountant’s fees £ 1,675
£62,675
Mr Crisa
Domestic disturbance £1,000
Mr Crisa’s time £1,000
£2,000
-
Within the issue of compensation or damages, and in addition to the contention by Mr Crisa that the reference land was taken unlawfully, I have identified five questions which I need to answer in order to make a determination in this reference. These relate to the adequacy of the evidence to support the claims; Mr Crisa’s right (if any) to compensation for loss of foundry patterns left on the reference land; whether the compulsory acquisition caused the loss of foundry patterns, machine tools and equipment and tools left on the reference land; the relationship between the claims for loss of profits and for interruption of trading, and whether there is a double-counting; and the power of this Tribunal (if any) to award damages (or compensation) for loss of quality of life. I deal with these questions below but first I consider Mr Crisa’s contention, which he raised many times during the hearing, that the taking of the reference land was unlawful. This appeared to be his main grievance and at the root of his claims. It involves a consideration of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
JURISDICTION OF LANDS TRIBUNAL
-
Mr Crisa’s contention that the acquisition was unlawful appears to rest on two grounds: allegations of bribery and corruption and section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (“the 1965 Act”). Mr Crisa has challenged the acquisition in the courts. He sought an injunction in the High Court to prevent entry by the Agency. This was refused on 16 March and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. On 10 May 1995 he unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the compulsory purchase order. I was not given any further details of this litigation. Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial