Mallick v Liverpool City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1999 |
| Date | 14 July 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal.
Before Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Schiemann
Compulsory purchase - compensation - delay in payment only compensatable by interest
Delay in the payment of compensation for compulsory purchase of property could only be compensated by the payment of interest at the Treasury rate as prescribed by section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1981.
The Court of Appeal so held dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Kashif Mallick, by way of case stated from a decision of the Lands Tribunal on September 30, 1997 to determine whether on the facts proved or admitted before the tribunal: (a) losses occasioned by the delay in payment of compensation awarded in the earlier decision by the tribunal against Liverpool City Council could only be compensated for by the payment of interest at the prescribed rates; (b) that the basis on which compensation was claimed and awarded for the loss of the claimant's freehold property 12 Devonshire Road, Liverpool, precluded a further claim for the loss of profits since the rents on which the capital value was calculated constituted the whole of the profit derived from the ownership of the property.
Mr Robin Green for the claimant; Mr Graham Sellers for the local authority.
LORD JUSTICE HENRY said the claimant was the freehold owner and occupier of the property, living in part of the premises and letting the remainder, for which he received a gross rental income of Pounds 18,284 a year. He relied on the rent to pay the mortgage.
The property was compulsorily purchased by the local authority on January 30, 1989. Eleven months later the claimant had received an advance payment of Pounds 27,900 on account.
That was supposed to represent 90 per cent of the estimated value of the property. It was an underestimate as the property was eventually valued at Pounds 80,000. The balance of the award was finally paid on October 14, 1993, some 4 3/4 years after the purchase date.
The claimant's case was that on acquisition of the property by the council, he would have reinvested in a similar property and let that out as before. But he could not afford to do so until he received his compensation.
Instead of mounting a claim and getting the Lands Tribunal to find the facts, the parties had decided to put in joint written submissions to establish the principles to be applied.
With the wisdom of hindsight, that might not have been the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A P Prielipp C Kennerly v Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions [CA (Civil), 19/06/2002]
- Harris v Welsh Development Agency
-
Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport
...what has been understood for very many years. 27 Mr Katkowski also relied on a "close analogy" with a decision of this Court in Mallick –v—Liverpool City Council [1999] 2 EGLR 7. I will comment briefly on that decision, because, although I have no doubt as to the correctness of the decision......
-
Decision Nº ACQ 147 2000. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 12-02-2000
...are referred to in this decision: Ryde International plc v London Regional Transport [2001] RVR 59 Mallick v Liverpool City Council [1999] 2 EGLR 7 Director of Buildings and Land v Shun Fung Ironworks [1995] 2 AC 111 Richards v Somerset County Council (2002) LT ACQ/23/1999 (Unreported) Chri......