International Traders Ferry Ltd v Adur District Council

Eligibility for compensation under section 186(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a legal or equitable interest in the land, or occupation. A contractual licence to use port facilities, without rights in any particular area or exclusive possession, does not by itself create an interest. Occupation is a question of fact and degree. Relevant considerations include the nature and duration of use, degree of control, exclusivity or paramountcy, and contractual limitations. Business use may qualify, but the evidence must establish sufficient control and permanence. Ancillary office space cannot be isolated from the wider operation where the arrangements form one whole. Convention property rights do not automatically enlarge the statutory categories. Under Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, a timely letter may constitute a claim even if detailed heads and quantum follow later.

International Traders Ferry Ltd sought compensation from Adur District Council for losses allegedly caused by a stop notice served in February 1995. The related enforcement notice was quashed by the Secretary of State on ground (c), namely that the matters stated did not constitute a breach of planning control. The Secretary of State’s decision was later restored on appeal.

The Lands Tribunal determined as preliminary issues whether the company had an interest in or occupied the land when the stop notice was served, and whether its letter of 25 February 1998 constituted a claim under section 186 and Regulation 12. The company appealed against the adverse finding on entitlement. The Council cross-appealed on the letter. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were the meaning of interest and occupation, the relevance of Convention property rights, and the requirements for a valid compensation claim.

1. Disposition. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The Court upheld the conclusion that ITF had neither an interest in nor occupation of the relevant land, but held that the letter of 25 February 1998 was a valid claim for compensation.
2. Interest in land. Section 186(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires an interest that is legal or equitable. The Court approved the approach in Stevens v Bromley London Borough Council [1972] 1 Ch 400. Pennine Raceway v Kirklees MBC [1983] 1 QB 382 was distinguishable because it concerned the different expression used in section 164 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The principle of equivalence in Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 concerns the amount of compensation and does not determine entitlement. ITF’s non-exclusive licences conferred no rights in any particular part of the port and did not establish the required interest. (paras [20]-[23])
3. Occupation. Whether a contractual licensee occupies land is a question of fact and degree. The court should consider the nature and context of the use, its duration and permanence, the degree of control, exclusivity or paramountcy, and contractual terms or other limitations. The Harbour Master’s power to relocate ITF and control its use of the port was important. The evidence lacked a coherent account of the company’s activities during the relevant period. The operation had to be viewed as a whole; the timber shed was an adjunct and could not constitute a free-standing occupation. (paras [24]-[35])
4. Convention argument. Article 1 of the First Protocol did not directly alter the statutory meaning of interest or occupation. Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden [1989] 13 EHRR 309 did not establish that every contractual licence was a possession. In any event, the evidence did not establish interference or deprivation, particularly given the relocation powers. (paras [36]-[37])
5. Claim requirements. Regulation 12 required a written claim within the prescribed period, but did not require heads of claim or quantum within that period. The letter, read as a whole, made a claim and reserved only the provision of full details. Claimants should nevertheless state claims clearly and provide appropriate details promptly. The Council was awarded 90 per cent of its costs and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. (paras [38]-[40])

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—Dismissed ITF’s appeal and the Council’s cross-appeal. [2004] EWCA Civ 288.
• Lands Tribunal—George Bartlett QC, President, determined preliminary issues by decision dated 13 June 2003 concerning compensation entitlement and the validity of the letter.
• Earlier planning proceedings—The Secretary of State quashed the enforcement notice on 28 January 1998. The decision was quashed in the High Court and restored on appeal to the Court of Appeal on 23 July 1999.