The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport v Unknown Owners
Decision date: 1 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 53 (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 case concerned whether Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council could pay tribunal-determined compensation into court and execute deed polls to vest title in land where the owners were unknown and no notices to treat had been served. The Tribunal held that, under Schedule 2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as framed by the Acquisition of Land Act 1981), notices to treat are required only for persons known to the acquiring authority after diligent inquiry, and are not required for unidentifiable owners. The Tribunal directed that the Council could pay the compensation into court and then execute deed polls vesting title in the five parcels without further steps.
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 ratio is that Schedule 2 of the 1965 Act authorises payment of tribunal-determined compensation into court and vesting by deed poll in respect of absent or untraced owners once compensation has been fixed; and the s.5(1) notice-to-treat obligation is qualified by the phrase "so far as known ... after making diligent inquiry," so it does not apply where owners cannot be identified.
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 judgment observes (obiter) that the 1981 Act’s service provisions for unknown owners (s.6(4)) govern methods of publicity for a CPO but do not themselves create an obligation to serve a notice to treat where the owner is unknown, and that s.9 of the 1965 Act (payment into court where an owner refuses compensation or cannot make out title) is a distinct circumstance in which payment into court may be appropriate.