Harringay Meat Traders Ltd v Greater London Authority

Decision date: 10 July 2014

Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 302 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: medium

Harringay Meat Traders sought Tribunal compensation after interests in several plots vested under general vesting declarations. The preliminary issue was whether parts of the reference were time‑barred under s.10(3) of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. The Tribunal held that the claims relating to plots 84 and 85 were out of the six‑year limitation period and struck those parts out, while requiring clarification and further particulars in respect of plot 59; the Tribunal refused to extend the statutory limitation period. Costs were ordered against the claimant.

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 treated each distinct interest that vested at a different date as giving rise to a separate cause of action, with the six‑year limitation period in s.10(3) running from the date the claimant knew or ought to have known of the vesting of the specific interest claimed; the Tribunal has no power to extend that statutory six‑year limitation period to admit a late reference.

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 notes record observations that the acquiring authority’s physical possession under a GVD is irrelevant to when time runs under s.10(3) (time runs from knowledge of vesting), and that late references cannot be cured by a Tribunal extension absent waiver or estoppel by the acquiring authority; these were treated as non‑decisive remarks.

Warning

- The chunk contains repeated passages and an addendum, making it somewhat repetitive but the core findings are clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML