70 However Mr Gugiatti's remaining claims raise a number of difficulties. It does not, with respect, disclose a great deal to say that these might be categorised as amounting to a "lost opportunity" claim. Much depends on what are said to be the components of such a claim. If, as counsel for Mr Gugiatti put it in argument to us, the "central element" of the claim is the loss of an opportunity to build up a business or businesses on other land (and this claim does not leap out from the pleaded particulars of loss and damage), then it may be that that opportunity was lost in 1958, when Mr Gugiatti built his workshop, or in 1976 and 1977, when Mr Gugiatti installed his underground tanks, depending upon the nature of the opportunity which is said to have been lost. If, on the other hand, the claim is, for example, one for relocation costs or for loss of profit as a result of relocation (and I say nothing as to the merit of that, or any other, claim), then it may be that those costs or losses were or will be incurred, if they have been or will be incurred at all, after 31 December 1999, on which date Mr Gugiatti ceased the existing uses in accordance with the City's directive. It must be appreciated in this respect that, when regard is had to the particularised heads of damage pleaded in the statement of claim, it becomes apparent that more than one cause of action has been pleaded, leaving open the prospect that some heads of claim might be found to be barred by the operation of the Act and others not. That makes it inappropriate to consider these claims on some "global" basis for limitation purposes. Rather, in my opinion, regard must be had to each individual head of claim.