The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Transport for London

For the costs consequences in a compulsory-purchase reference, a claimant must give a properly particularised notice of claim sufficiently early to enable the acquiring authority to make a proper offer. A late and inadequate claim engages Land Compensation Act 1961, section 4(1)(b).

That consequence is not absolute. Once a sufficiently particularised claim is served, the authority has a reasonable period to make an offer. The Tribunal may also decline the statutory costs order where special reasons make it just to do so. Relevant circumstances may include both parties’ failure to pursue an available practical settlement, unexplained delay in reaching it, and conduct likely to cause further costly argument.

The claimants’ sub-soil interests beneath Billingsgate Market were compulsorily acquired for the Crossrail scheme. Shortly before expiry of the limitation period, they made a protective compensation claim and referred it to the Tribunal. The parties later settled by a 25-year option agreement under which rights could be granted to allow piles to be inserted into the acquired sub-soil, rather than by a monetary payment.

The settlement did not deal with costs. The acquiring authority sought its costs under section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, contending that the claim had not been properly particularised in time. The claimants sought their own costs and relied on the value of the settlement. The issue was whether section 4(1)(b) applied and, if so, whether special reasons justified a different costs order.

1. Both costs applications were dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of and incidental to the reference.

2. The claimants’ pre-reference costs reasonably incurred in preparing a compensation claim formed part of compensation, rather than costs of the Tribunal proceedings. The costs determination therefore concerned only costs of and incidental to the reference.

3. The letter of 9 June 2017 and the reference of 14 June 2017 did not provide the particulars required by section 4(1)(b) and (2) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. For a substantial claim for injurious affection, the limited material did not sufficiently explain the claim to enable a proper offer. A compliant notice should have been served no later than 14 December 2016, six months before limitation expired. Section 4(1)(b) was therefore engaged.

4. The further particulars served on 1 February 2018 did sufficiently demonstrate a genuine potential claim for substantial injurious affection. They enabled the acquiring authority to make the type of non-monetary offer ultimately accepted. The authority was entitled to one month to consider that material. Absent special reasons, the provisional result would have been that the claimants bore their own costs and paid the authority’s costs until 1 March 2018, with the converse order thereafter.

5. Special reasons made that provisional order unjust. The practical settlement had always been available, yet neither party pursued it promptly. The authority could have initiated discussions before the protective reference, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the year taken to reach settlement. There was also substantial scope for reciprocal criticism of the parties’ procedural conduct. These matters justified no costs order in either party’s favour.

No appellate history is stated. The proceedings began with a compensation reference to the Upper Tribunal, made on 14 June 2017. Following settlement, the claimants gave notice of withdrawal, which required the Tribunal’s consent under Rule 20 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010.