Harnek Singh Samra & Anor v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Decision date: 24 August 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 323 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerns the costs order following a Tribunal award of £547,039 for compulsory acquisition of land in Smethwick. The claimants sought costs on the indemnity basis; the acquiring authority sought assessment on the standard basis. The Tribunal applied the principle of equivalence and ordered costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis (subject to disallowance of items shown to be unreasonable) and directed a payment on account of £150,000 within 28 days.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

Where a compulsory acquisition award and the parties' settlement history support application of the principle of equivalence, costs may be assessed on the indemnity basis; the acquiring authority bears the burden of identifying and proving any specific costs items were unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred in order to displace indemnity treatment. Detailed assessment was directed in the Senior Courts Costs Office with disallowance only of items shown to be unreasonable.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal noted that authorities such as Bodden, Bonnell and Pro Investments may be persuasive on applying equivalence to costs but are not binding and must be considered alongside Practice Directions and later decisions. It also observed that it was unnecessary to decide whether the acquiring authority’s litigation conduct independently warranted indemnity costs once equivalence had been applied.