Horn v Sunderland Corporation

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1941
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
185 cases
  • Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 6 Mayo 2021
    ...date would be expected to reflect whatever development potential the land has. 28 As Scott LJ put it in the well-known case of Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26, 42, the first of the leading features of the legislation is that: “… what it gives to the owner compelled to sell is ......
  • Hughes v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 13 Diciembre 1990
    ...with all the actual use of it by the person who holds it, is to be considered by those who have to assess the compensation." 9In Horn v. Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 K.B. 26 the question posed was whether, in the application of rules 2 and 6 under section 2 of the Act of 1919, the owner......
  • Palatine Graphic Arts Company Ltd v Liverpool City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Noviembre 1985
    ...land as such but also the right to be compensated for that consequential loss. As Lord Justice Scott said in the leading case of Horn v. Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 K.B. 26 at page 45: "None the less, the owner in a proper case—that is, in a case where he really does incur a loss of mon......
  • Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 24 Enero 1957
    ...The Scottish case is ( Venables v. Department of Agriculture for Scotland 1932 Session Cases, page 573), and the English case is Horn v. Sunderland Corporation, in this Court ( 1941, 2 King's Bench, page 26). Those cases show that, in addition to the actual market value of the house, when s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • El Boustani - where to from here compulsory acquisitions?
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 9 Junio 2014
    ...2See for example Jacobs, Marcus "Law of Compulsory Land Acquisition" (2010), 557-566. 3See for example Horn v. Sunderland Corporation (1941) 2 KB 26; and Standard Fuel Co. v. Toronto Terminals Railway Co. (1935) 3 DLR 4Land Acquisition And Compensation Act 1986 (Vic), s.41; Land Acquisition......
5 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1968 Preliminary Sections
    • 12 Noviembre 2022
    ...4 Barn and Cress 529: 28 Rev. Rep. 375 8 Hilton v. The Earl of Granville (1841) Cr. and Ph. 283 241 Horn v. Sunderland Corporation (1941) 2 K B 26 314 Horsfall v. Amachree (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 18 2 In re Enoch and Zaretsky, Bock & Co. Ltd, (1910) 1 K.B. 327. 152 In Re Gordon, Roberts v. Gordon......
  • Utility wayleaves: a compensation lottery?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Property Investment & Finance No. 20-2, April 2002
    • 1 Abril 2002
    ...LR 6 QB 37.21. See the Land Compensation Act 1961, s. 5; Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, s. 12.22. Horn v. Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 per Scott LJ at pp. 42 and 49.23. See The Report of the Commission on the Third London Airport (HMSO, 1971); The Reportof the Urban Motorwa......
  • Compulsory purchase and compensation update – 2015
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Property Investment & Finance No. 33-6, September 2015
    • 7 Septiembre 2015
    ...reference to Spirerose and argued only that theacquiring authority’s approach breached the overarching principal from Horn v.Sunderland (1941) 2 KB 26 that the purpose of compensation is to put the claimantin a position no better and no worse than if the scheme had not occurred. The UT didn......
  • Assessing the compensation for electricity wayleaves
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Property Investment & Finance No. 17-2, May 1999
    • 1 Mayo 1999
    ...of a new right, is based on the loss to thelandowner, not on the gain to the electricity supply company. In Horn v.Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 Scott LJ stated that ``the principle ofequivalence was at the root of statutory compensation, which lays it down thatthe owner shall be pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT