Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11000
11000. CHAIRMAN: I think the Lands Tribunal
is used to it.
11001. MR DINGEMANS: Not to this bolt-on.
That is the point. My Lord Chairman, I entirely accept the first
point. I said if we were simply on the 1965 Act we could argue
against it, but we won that argument in the House of Commons,
for what it is worth, but, most importantly, for today's purposes
my learned friend's side accepted that; they accepted that as
it was insufficient. What they have done is then modified an inadequate
statute in a way that is unprecedented. No one will be able to
tell you exactly what that wording means because there are no
precedents to help you work it out.
11002. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a text
for an undertaking which does not fall into all these difficulties?
11003. MR DINGEMANS: Yes, my Lord. If
one goes to paragraph 28 of the Petition, and if you look at page
16 of the document in the middle of paragraph 28 there should
be a clause.
11004. CHAIRMAN: This is the statutory
11005. MR DINGEMANS: Yes. The great thing
about it is that it can be modified in the way I suggest.
11006. CHAIRMAN: This is what I am asking.
What is the modification?
11007. MR DINGEMANS: I am just about
to dictate it, my Lords. It is only two changes. If one looks
at it, instead of "The Promoter", because of the way
it would now be put into the deed it would be "The nominated
undertaker", so you just delete "Promoter" and
put in "nominated undertaker", and then: "shall
pay to any tenant or trader", you delete the words "or
trader" because the deed is "defined tenant".
11008. CHAIRMAN: I am having problems
with this. I have got what I thought was the Petition we were
11009. MR DINGEMANS: I think your Lordships
have a different Petition. My Lords, for reasons I am not entirely
sure about, you have got a clause which was, I think, drafted
specifically for the Act itself. Can I give you the wording that
11010. BARONESS FOOKES: Can you read
out what you want?
11011. MR DINGEMANS: Yes, if that is
11012. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: At the
moment, the screens, like our minds, have gone blank!
11013. MR DINGEMANS: That is because
I was looking at your Petition. Can I read it out and then one
can see. This would actually work within a deed more appropriately.
"The nominated undertaker shall pay to any tenant in the
Smithfield Meat Market full compensation for all loss and damage
including but not limited to loss of meat or marketable commodities
and loss of business income which he sustains by reason of the
construction of the scheduled and connected works."
11014. CHAIRMAN: It sounds to me like
11015. MR DINGEMANS: It is, effectively,
the equivalent clause. Your Lordship is right; it is effectively
adapted from the Midland Mainline provision, but with specific
points. What it means is if you have suffered loss because of
the works you will be compensated for it.
11016. CHAIRMAN: You are going to have
an awful lot of friends amongst the other Petitioners if you succeed
in getting that indemnity.
11017. MR DINGEMANS: If the other Petitioners
were in our situation. My learned friend is very skilful with
his "floodgates""dreadful, everyone else
will want it; you will have to change all the statutory schemes;
they are not unique at all, like a sandwich shop". Can I
deal with each of those points head on and confront them?
11018. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11019. MR DINGEMANS: First of all, in
the House of Commons exactly that point was made: "Everyone
else will want exactly the same thing. We cannot give them even
this. We cannot even extend or modify undertaking 234". Well,
did that work in the House of Commons? No. Was it right not to
work in the House of Commons? Of course it was right that it failed
because we are in a completely different situation from everyone
else. Everyone else has been through this process once; no one
else got a similar recommendation. So I entirely accept, my Lord,
the Lord Chairman's point: "Is this the beginning of the
floodgates?" Answer: no, because everyone has been through
the process before and it is only us that have withstood the proper
analysis of our claim.