Love v Roads Corporation

Love, the appellant, brought an action against the Roads Corporation, the respondent, after their land was compulsorily acquired. The appellant sought compensation for the loss of land and the diminution in value caused to the remaining land. They claimed for loss of market value, special value, severance or disturbance, and loss of amenity, and also for the loss of potential future use of the land as landfill. The trial judge found that there was a low prospect of the land being used as a landfill site and that the highest and best use of the land was future industrial use. The trial judge awarded compensation, and the appellant appealed the decision, contending that the trial judge erred in calculating the amount of compensation awarded and that the highest and best use of the land was incorrectly determined. The court was also required to determine if the trial judge correctly applied the test for severance and whether there was a valid disturbance claim. Additionally, the appellant argued that the land had special value in its potential use as a landfill and that the trial judge should have taken into account a 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer when awarding costs.

The court considered the arguments and found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in determining the compensation amount and the highest and best use of the land. The court held that there was no special value in the landfill potential and that the test for severance was correctly applied. Regarding the costs, the court determined that the trial judge could consider the 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer when exercising discretion under section 91 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The court concluded that the conduct arising from the offer did not constitute unreasonable conduct for the purposes of section 91(1)(b)(i) of the Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.