Wildtree Hotels Limited and Others v. London Borough of Harrow

The appellants sought compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for injurious affection caused by roadworks undertaken by the respondent council. The House of Lords considered three preliminary legal questions arising from a Lands Tribunal reference: (1) whether loss caused by noise, dust and vibration is compensatable; (2) whether non-actionable losses linked to an actionable public nuisance are recoverable; and (3) whether temporary injury to land is excluded from compensation when the valuation date shows no residual depreciation in capital value.

The court held that claims for noise, dust and vibration caused in the course of works will normally not give rise to compensation because they will frequently fail the common-law test of actionability (reasonable conduct of works) and because damage caused by the operation of completed works is excluded by established authority (Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand). The court rejected the submission that a claimant may recover for non-actionable loss merely because some injurious affection giving rise to a claim was actionable. However, the House restored the Lands Tribunal's opinion on the third question: temporary damage is not excluded as a matter of law and may be compensable; valuation can take account of past reduction in market or letting value even if capital value has recovered by the valuation date.

The Harrow Hotel proprietors claimed compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for loss suffered during council improvement works to Roxborough Bridge and its approaches. Although no land was acquired from the hotel, the owners alleged that hoardings, obstructions, noise, dust and vibration injuriously affected the hotel business. The dispute was referred to the Lands Tribunal which decided preliminary points of law. The Tribunal's decision was stated to the Court of Appeal, which by a majority answered the questions adversely to the claimants. The claimants then appealed to the House of Lords.

• Nature of the claim: compensation for injurious affection under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for loss said to arise from the execution of public works.
• Issues framed: (1) whether loss from noise, dust and vibration is compensatable; (2) whether non-actionable losses connected to actionable injurious affection are recoverable; (3) whether temporary damage that has ceased by the valuation date is excluded from compensation.
• Court’s reasoning and conclusions: the House explained that section 10 must be construed in the light of the historic section 68 jurisprudence. For issue (1) the court accepted that while such nuisances can constitute damage to land in principle, in practice claims for noise, dust and vibration will usually fail because the common-law test of actionability requires proof that the works were unreasonably conducted, and many such effects fall within the reasonable burdens neighbours must bear. The rule that operation of completed works causing nuisance is not compensatable was reaffirmed as relevant. On issue (2) the court rejected the argument that non-actionable loss is recoverable simply because it is associated with an actionable public nuisance. For issue (3) the House held that temporary damage is not excluded as a matter of law; compensation may be awarded for temporary diminution in market or letting value and valuation methods may take account of loss suffered during the period of works even if the capital value has recovered by the agreed valuation date.

The court therefore allowed the appeal in part (on question 3) and otherwise dismissed it, underlining the interplay between statutory protection, common-law actionability and valuation principles in claims for injurious affection.

Appeal allowed in part. The House dismissed the appeal except insofar as it restored the Lands Tribunal's opinion on question 3: temporary damage is not excluded from compensation and past diminution in market or letting value may be compensated even if the capital value at the valuation date has recovered. The court rejected claims in principle for noise, dust and vibration in these circumstances and rejected the assertion that non-actionable losses linked to actionable nuisance are recoverable as such.

The dispute was refereed to the Lands Tribunal (member Judge Rich Q.C.) which gave a decision and stated a case to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, by a majority (Peter Gibson and Pill L.JJ.; Ward L.J. dissenting), answered the three stated questions against the claimants: reported at [1999] Q.B. 634. The appellants appealed to the House of Lords, which delivered judgment in this cause ([2000] UKHL 70).