(1) William Henry Bond (2) Holme Sand & Ballast (3) Hanson Quarry Products Limited v Dorset County Council
Decision date: 11 October 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 364 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This case concerned whether Hanson could claim compensation under section 107 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by valuing its leasehold loss on the basis that, but for European site designations and confirmed modification orders, it would have been granted a new post‑2008 lease. The Tribunal held that section 117 brings in only the rules in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 "so far as applicable" and does not import section 9 or the 1961 Act's closing provisions, that HSB (the reversionary lessee) is a person interested in the land, and that Hanson's alleged loss from the lost prospect of a new lease was only indirectly attributable to the modification order and so could not form the basis of s107 compensation.
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
The binding ratio is that, for depreciation claims under s107 read with s117, valuation is of the interest as it exists at the valuation date applying only the rules in s5 of the 1961 Act so far as applicable; s9 and the 1961 Act's closing provisions do not apply. Losses must be "directly attributable" to the statutory act (here the modification order) to be compensatable, so a loss consisting of a purely hypothetical prospect of a new lease not directly caused by the order is excluded.
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 suggested (obiter) that rule (6) of section 5 does not itself create an entitlement to disturbance compensation under s117 and is inapplicable to depreciation claims under s107, and noted that concerns about double recovery did not need resolution once the direct‑attribution requirement failed; compensation based on lost prospects would only be possible if facts showed a rival lease would not in reality have been granted.
Warning
Chunk contains substantial repeated material (text duplication) which made extraction of discrete points more laborious. notes contain some repeated material and duplication which may indicate the extracts are not exhaustive; none