Tribunal confirms strict time limits for serving counter-notice to notice to treat (Anixter v Secretary of State)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What is the legal background to the case?
• Notice to treat
• GVD
• What is the factual background to the case?
• What did the court find?
• GVD counter-notice was served in time
• CPA 1965 was applicable procedure
• Time limit for serving counter—notice under CPA 1965 could not be extended
• Case details

Article summary

Planning analysis: In Anixter v Secretary of State for Transport, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) confirmed that, in the context of a compulsory acquisition for HS2, a landowner’s failure to serve a counter-notice in response to a notice to treat within the statutory time limit was fatal to that claim and the Tribunal had no power to extend time. The landowner could therefore not insist on the compulsory acquisition of its remaining premises, but could still claim compensation.