Five Oaks Land Limited v London Borough of Redbridge

A compensation claim following compulsory acquisition is brought within the limitation period when it is referred to the Upper Tribunal under Land Compensation Act 1961, section 1. The statute does not require a prescribed notice of reference or impose a particular form for that referral.

A document submitted within time which identifies the claimant, asks the Tribunal to determine the disputed compensation, and explains the claim may satisfy the statutory requirement even if it does not comply with procedural rules. Non-compliance with the Tribunal’s rules is an irregularity capable of remedy under rule 7 and does not itself make proceedings void.

The respondent compulsorily acquired numerous parcels of land on 31 March 2015. The claimant held options over some of the land. Before expiry of the six-year limitation period, solicitors filed 17 notices of reference for other claimants, each accompanied by a consolidated statement of case which named the claimant and set out the basis of its compensation claim.

No notice of reference was filed in the claimant’s name until November 2021. The respondent contended that the claim was time-barred under section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. The central issue was whether the consolidated statement of case had referred the claimant’s disputed compensation claim to the Tribunal in time and, if so, whether the procedural defect could be remedied.

1. Application granted. The claimant’s compensation claim was referred to the Tribunal on 30 March 2021, within the limitation period. The Tribunal waived the requirement in rule 28(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 and accepted the notice filed on 23 November 2021 as the claimant’s notice of reference.

2. Section 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 requires a disputed compensation claim to be referred to the Upper Tribunal. For the purposes of section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, that is when the claim is brought. The 1961 Act neither requires a notice of reference nor prescribes the form of a referral.

3. The consolidated statement of case was sufficient. It identified the claimant as an intended claimant, described its option interests, explained the valuation basis, and included its claim within the total compensation sought. It therefore asked the Tribunal to determine a specified claimant’s compensation dispute.

4. The procedural rules and Practice Directions could not impose a substantive limitation on making a statutory claim. Although the statement was not compliant with rule 28, rule 7 provided that such an irregularity did not itself render the proceedings void and could be remedied.

5. It was fair and just to permit the defect to be remedied. Excluding the claim would create no material saving in time, cost, or Tribunal resources because the related references would proceed together. It would instead confer an unfair windfall on the acquiring authority. The conditions for striking out under rule 8 were not met.

The Tribunal gave a provisional indication that the costs of the application should be the respondent’s costs in the reference, subject to written submissions.

not stated in the judgment.