Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

local authority entered on to the land in question, although the amount of
compensation the owner of that land was entitled to had, in the case of dispute, to
be decided by the Lands Tribunal. In this case the applicant’s claim was timebarred
by section 9 of the 1980 Act as the claimant had not issued proceedings in
the courts (and indeed had not even made a reference to the Lands Tribunal)
within 6 years of the local authority entering on to the land. 32
7.14 It has also been held that section 9 (or its predecessor section 2(1)(d)) applies in
the following cases:
(1) a claim in arbitral proceedings to recover compensation assessed by an
arbitrator under the provisions of a statute; 33
(2) actions by local authorities under section 10(3) of the Housing Act 1957 to
recover expenses incurred by the authority in carrying out work done to
property controlled by the defendant; 34
(3) an action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for a contribution
to a company’s assets for wrongful trading, the contribution to be assessed
by the court. 35
7.15 Whether an action is governed by section 8 or section 9 of the 1980 Act is
determined by the nature of the relief sought. Where an action brought under a
statute seeks relief other than the payment of a sum of money, the relevant
limitation period is that provided for in section 8. 36
7.16 The cause of action under section 8 or section 9 will be considered to accrue for
limitation purposes once the plaintiff is able to assert “every fact which it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the
32 We agree with the obiter dicta of Stanley Burnton QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court
Judge, to the effect that it would be more sensible if the Lands Tribunal was clearly
recognised as having the power to award compensation so that the six years limitation
period under section 9 of the 1980 Act applied directly to the claim before the Lands
Tribunal (rather than the applicant needing to issue proceedings in the ordinary courts
within the six year limitation period to recover the sum assessed by the Lands Tribunal).
The judge thought that, in the event of his decision not being appealed, so that there would
be no opportunity for an appellate court to rule on this, there should be legislation to clarify
the point. We agree but, as the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal is not a limitation matter,
it would seem inappropriate for it to be dealt with in this project.
33 Pegler v Great Western Railway [1947] 1 All ER 355 (CA), affirmed sub nom Pegler v Railway
Executive [1948] AC 332 (HL), a claim for compensation under the Railways Act 1921. See
also West Riding County Council v Huddersfield Corpn [1957] 1 QB 540, a claim for
compensation under the Local Government Act 1933.
34 Swansea City Council v Glass [1992] QB 844.
35 Moore v Gadd, The Times, 17 February 1997.
36 Applying these principles, an action under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act
1943 would be subject to the limitation period prescribed in s 9.
115