Injurious Affection s.10 - Compulsory Purchase Act 1965

Go to content

For Practice > Bank for Consultations/ Reform Papers pages > Projects

Injurious Affection s.10



What is the Problem
s.10 of the 1965 Act provides injurious affection compensation where legal rights held with land are interfered with but no interest is acquired from the claimant. The measure of compensation is the reduction in the value of the claimant’s land as a result of the interference. Eligibility for compensation is summarised in the "McCarthy Rules" and includes a requirement that the interference with the affected right must have been "actionable" in the absence of the authority’s statutory protection. The actionability of interference in the absence of protection stems from the law of tort but in many cases is not easily ascertainable, particularly in relation to interference with public rights which may or may not constitute an actionable tort.

This uncertainty makes it difficult and potentially expensive for claimants to seek redress under this provision with little certainty as to the outcome.

To create greater certainty in relation to eligibility for compensation under s.10 to allow claimants and authorities to deal more quickly and efficiently with situations where public and private rights are interfered with in pursuance of public works.

What We Seek
We have considered this issue in the past without being able to propose a workable solution. The principal problem surrounds clearly defining criteria by which the interference with rights should be judged to fall within or without the provision in s.10, particularly in relation to interference with a public right which may constitute an actionable nuisance for example. We do not currently have reform proposals for this issue but welcome thoughts and observations that may inform our further consideration of the matter.  

Notes from Discussion
Should do away with S10 and revise Part 1 and this should be a high priority for reform or any future Law Commission report.

Do not agree that we should remove the actionability test.

Next Step/Actions
This issue to be considered further in light of Autumn statement on CP law reform. Matter for further discussion with DCLG.

Back to content