Hewitt v Leicester Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0331-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 31 March 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0331-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of Leicester Corporation, the Compensating Athority, from the decision of the Lands Tribunal of 4th March 1968.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Winn and
Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson
Mr. A.P. McNABB (instructed by Hessrs. Nabarro Nathanson & Co., agents for Messrs. Barradale & Haxby of Leicester) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr. PHILIP CLOUGH (instructed by Messrs Field Roscoe & Co. Agents for Kr. R.R.-Thornton, Town Hall, Leicester) appeared on behalf of the Compensating Authority.
We need not trouble you, Mr. McNabb.
The Leicester Corporation decided compulsorily to acquire a house No. 89 Upper Kent Street, Leicester. They made a compulsory purchase order under Part III of the Housing Act 1957 which incorporated the provisions of the Land Clauses Act, 1945, about a notice to treat.
The owner of the house was a Mrs. Olive Linda Hewitt. The Corporation had an address for her - No. 23 Wharf Street, Leicester. On the 20th May, 1965, they sent her a notice to treat and other formal documents in a letter on the recorded delivery service addressed to "Mrs. Olive Linda Hewitt, 23 Wharf Street". The letter soon came back. It came back through the post marked "returned undelivered", with a note that she had "gone away". Thereafter the house at 89 Upper Kent Street became unoccupied so that it could be had with vacant possession.
It turned out afterwards that Mrs. Hewitt was living at Leamington Spa. She appointed agents to act for her. On the 23rd December, 1965, the Leicester Corporation sent the notice to treat and the other documents to the agents of Mrs. Hewitt. It reached her agents on the 23rd December, 1965.
The question is: When was the notice to treat served? This is important because the value of the property is normally to be ascertained as at the date of the service of the notice to treat. The dates have made a great differences if the notice to treat was properly served on the 20th May, 1965, the value of the house then was £1,000: but if it was not effectively served until the 23rd December, 1965, the value at that date was £1,500. So the question is whether the notice to treat of the 20th May was a proper service.
The service of the notice to treat is covered by section 169(1) of the Housing Act, 1957, which says that it may be served "(c)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WX Investments Ltd v Begg
...in the ordinary course of post of a recorded delivery letter. Nearer home, in my view, is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hewitt v Leicester Corporation [1969] 1 WLR 855, where a letter was sent by recorded delivery and was returned marked 'Gone away'. Lord Denning MR said at p 858: ......
-
Loveleen Morgan-Taylor v Metropolitan Management Transport Holdings Ltd
...and was returned to the hands of the sender's representative. 14 I respectfully adopt the opinion of Lord Denning M.R. in Hewitt v Leicester City Council where the learned Judge said: ‘We are not bound to “deem” a notice to be served at a particular time, when we know that in fact it was no......
-
Sanger v Newham London Borough Council
...undelivered. Those are not the facts of the present case. 52 The same can be said of another decision relied upon by Mr Coppel: Hewitt v Leicester Corporation [1969] 1 WLR 855. In that case a notice to treat under compulsory purchase legislation was sent to a landowner by recorded delivery ......
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mariam Chumun and Another
...1 All ER 30. Moody v Godstone Rural District CouncilWLRUNK [1966] 1 WLR 1085: [1966] 2 All ER 696. Hewitt v Leicester CorporationWLRUNK [1969] 1 WLR 855: [1969] 2 All ER 802. Maltglade Ltd and ors. v St Albans Rural District CouncilWLRUNK [1972] 1 WLR 1230: [1972] 3 All ER 129. R v Immigrat......