Mr Shiad Khan v Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus
Decision date: 27 January 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 43 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned Mr Khan's claim for compensation after part of his yard was taken into possession in July 2000 and referred only in July 2013. The Tribunal held the Limitation Act 1980 six-year period barred the claim, finding no estoppel by convention, representation/promissory estoppel or waiver arose from negotiations or advance payments, and s29 did not restart limitation for such compulsory acquisition claims. The acquiring authority succeeded and the claim was dismissed; Mr Khan was ordered to pay the authority's costs.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal's core ratio is that a shared or assumed intention that compensation would be paid is insufficient to defeat a limitation defence unless there is a communicated common assumption that limitation would not be relied on; continued negotiations or advance payments after expiry do not, without more, amount to a representation or waiver preventing reliance on limitation; and s29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 does not restart the limitation period for claims for compensation for compulsory acquisition.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed that even if an estoppel by convention had arisen it would be temporary and could be ended by clear notice, and that an acquiring authority may continue negotiations and make reasonable advance payments without necessarily abandoning a limitation defence.