Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
No doubt in response to that complaint the Claimant appointed Mr Keith Murray FRICS to act on its behalf, and he, on 13 � June 1995 finally produced a formal claim in response to the Authority's notice to treat.
Accordingly negotiations were continued, albeit in what has been described as a desultory way, with Mr Ian Burgess being appointed to act on behalf of the Authority from April 1998.
Mr Murray has not suggested, in his evidence, that the Claimant knew of or placed any reliance upon any policy the Authority might have had, not to rely upon any limitation period.
Although Mr Harper used the expression "common assumption" to describe the assurance which he invited the Tribunal to find, he did not rely upon this Decision. I agree that it is not in point. It is, in my judgement a case "where there was agreement about the manner in which the claim was to be resolved if negotiations broke down" (see the reference to Hillingdon (N0 2) at page 104 F at paragraph 5 above). On the evidence which I have heard as to the discussions between Mr Burgess and Mr Murray, I cannot make any such finding in this case.
Although a claim for compensation on compulsory acquisition arises under statute, it is, at least for these purposes, a claim in private law against the Acquiring Authority, and decisions as to the conduct of the claim affect only the parties to it. The observations of Lord Hoffman have no relevance to the claim in this case.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.