ion that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and wh

There are many land owners who are effected by compulsory purchase works. It might not touch the piece of land which you own, but it might very well effect it. Compulsory purchase works is when legislation allows land owners, to claim compensation for land which they did not give.

Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; and

Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The aim of this essay will be to discuss these two legal points point and highlight any irregularities with the cases. I will attempt to describe how this law is different from section 7 and how the courts have differing views regarding the rewarding of compensation for the two sections. At the end of this essay I will attempt for the reader to have a good understanding of the laws but more importantly the arguments surrounding them.

What Is Section 10

Section 10 is contained in the Compulsory purchase Act 1965. This enables a claim to be made during the construction process only of a compulsory purchase scheme. The relevant provision which is found in section 10 is based upon a similar provision contained in section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Although a literal interpretation of the words used in section 68 did not provide the basis for any substantial compensation entitlement for owners from whom no land had been taken, the section has been interpreted by the courts from an early date as providing exactly that; and section 10 now expressly recognizes and confirms that entitlement.

The fundamental principal underlying the compensation principal is equivalence ie the claimant should be put, in so far as money can do it, into substantially the same financial position that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and wh

ese two legal points point and highlight any irregularities with the cases. I will attempt to describe how this law is different from section 7 and how the courts have differing views regarding the rewarding of compensation for the two sections. At the end of this essay I will attempt for the reader to have a good understanding of the laws but more importantly the arguments surrounding them.

What Is Section 10

Section 10 is contained in the Compulsory purchase Act 1965. This enables a claim to be made during the construction process only of a compulsory purchase scheme. The relevant provision which is found in section 10 is based upon a similar provision contained in section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Although a literal interpretation of the words used in section 68 did not provide the basis for any substantial compensation entitlement for owners from whom no land had been taken, the section has been interpreted by the courts from an early date as providing exactly that; and section 10 now expressly recognizes and confirms that entitlement.

The fundamental principal underlying the compensation principal is equivalence ie the claimant should be put, in so far as money can do it, into substantially the same financial position that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and wh

Section 10 is contained in the Compulsory purchase Act 1965. This enables a claim to be made during the construction process only of a compulsory purchase scheme. The relevant provision which is found in section 10 is based upon a similar provision contained in section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Although a literal interpretation of the words used in section 68 did not provide the basis for any substantial compensation entitlement for owners from whom no land had been taken, the section has been interpreted by the courts from an early date as providing exactly that; and section 10 now expressly recognizes and confirms that entitlement.

The fundamental principal underlying the compensation principal is equivalence ie the claimant should be put, in so far as money can do it, into substantially the same financial position that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and wh

ial compensation entitlement for owners from whom no land had been taken, the section has been interpreted by the courts from an early date as providing exactly that; and section 10 now expressly recognizes and confirms that entitlement.

The fundamental principal underlying the compensation principal is equivalence ie the claimant should be put, in so far as money can do it, into substantially the same financial position that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and wh

ion that they would have been in the absence of compulsory purchase powers.

How Relevant Is Section 10

This sets out the case law for the two acts. However these acts can be critically analyzed, first looked at will be section 10 and the McCarthy tests. Perhaps the major stumbling block as far as this rule is concerned is that it dates back to 1874, one must ask the question that surely times have changed and what was generally just and equitable in 1874 may not necessarily be so now. Rule one of the test states that this section only applies to the execution of the works and not there use. If this is then compared to section 7 of the same act were land is taken, both aspects are covered. Why then it is needed for an extra act in section 1 of the Land compensation act 1973 to be introduced simply for the provision of the works use, when an extension of the McCarthy tests or a new rule would have been more relevant.

Conclusion

Prior to the 1973 act, not only was the public dissatisfied that it could only claim for the effects of the works in very limited circumstances, but also that claims for noise, dust and other nuisance during construction and from the subsequent road use were almost impossible. Given the need to control public expenditure, the land compensation act 1973 has gone some way to satisfy these public complaints in so far as, compensation is now claimable due to physical factors. But the point was raised earlier how relevant section 10 is and using the examples shown and the small amounts of compensation that were paid it seems that there was very little use for section 10, and any claim could be delayed and then claimed under part 1 at a later date including the pv of the claim over that time. This would be a far easier and more practical way of processing a claim and would save the added paper work of processing two claims in relation to the same property when ideally only one is strictly necessary. Regarding the reasons why section 7 compensation seems to be always awarded and section 10 very rarely, the only reasonable explanation for this is that it i