Does the Crown have to pay compensation for injurious affection to land where no land has been expropriated?

Ricket v. Metropolitan Ry., supra, made a very strong distinction between the compensation for injurious affection to land where no land has been expropriated and where land is taken and the crown, having expelled the owner, is bound to compensate him for all the loss caused by the expulsion. The majority of the court held that the compensation for the goodwill of business carried on upon land actually taken is granted expressly on the ground that the occupier is expelled therefrom and is distinguished thereby from a claim by an occupier from whom nothing has been taken and concludes that there is no precedent for an injury to goodwill or for a loss of profit in the business carried on upon the land where no land has been taken. The case holds that the injury for which compensation is due “must be in respect of the property itself, and not of any particular use to which it may from time to time be put.”