Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Simon Pickles

Simon Pickles

Simon Pickles

YEAR OF CALL 1978SPickles@landmarkchambers.co.uk

AREAS OF LAW

Publications
Podcasts
Print all

Compulsory purchase and compensation

A more detailed indication of areas of work undertaken since January 2011: 

Advisory

Advice on compensation claims to claimants and acquiring authorities has included advice on claims for: business extinguishment or relocation and loss of development value

resulting from, eg, the Thameslink, London Olympics, Crossrail and new Runcorn Mersey crossing CPOs. Advice also to Petitioners and others on the compensation provisions of the HS2 Bill and associated non-statutory schemes, and on compensation issues arising from the variation of licences under the Wildlife Resources Act 1991. 

Lands Chamber

Appeared at substantive hearings concerning: the effect of section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 on assessment, under rule (2) of section 5 of the 1961 Act, of the value of interests acquired (G.P.E. (Hanover Square) Limited and others v. Transport for London [ACQ/83/2011]) (as junior counsel)]; and the proper interpretation of the provisions for compensation on modification of planning permission (Hanson Quarry Products Ltd v. Dorset CC [2010] UKUT 364 (LC)). Appeared also at preliminary or case management hearings (eg re CAADs) following which claims have been resolved.

Earlier cases

Appeared for Claimants at preliminary hearing concerning entitlement as a matter of law to recover, under rule 6, compensation for the loss of rental income that would have resulted from redevelopment of land taken (Pattle & Pattle v. Secretary of State for Transport [ACQ 7 2007]). Proper construction of the limitation provisions relating to General Vesting Declarations (The Estate of Reginald Hodson v. Rochford District Council [ACQ 467 2007]).

Experience in this area of the law follows appearances as junior counsel in Director of Buildings & Land v. Shun Fung [1995] 2 AC 111 (recovery of pre-acquisition losses) and Hughes v. Doncaster MBC (1991) 1 AC 382 ('contrary to law' in rule (4)).