Mr Lakshmi Narain Khurana Mr Rajiv Khurana. Mrs Ruma Khurana v Transport for London
Decision date: 29 November 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 466 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 determined compensation payable to the freehold and trading occupiers of 1 Oxford Street taken under the Crossrail Act 2008, fixing valuation at 16 January 2009. The tribunal decided the freehold value at about £1,950,000 (total compensation about £2.2m) using proximate comparable evidence, allowed certain disturbance items (time and forensic accountancy fees) but disallowed abortive relocation/purchase costs for 145 Oxford Street as too remote. TfL was ordered to pay the claimants' reasonable costs of the reference.
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 tribunal applied proximate, contemporaneous comparable evidence and adjusted yields to reflect market movement to the valuation date, preferring such evidence over distant or post-date comparables without sensible time adjustment; and held that abortive relocation costs are not recoverable where the claimant proceeded with the purchase despite being aware of the acquiring authority's revised valuation and the costs claimed arise from the claimant's own investment choice rather than a direct consequence of the acquisition.
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 observed that small-lot purchasers or owner-occupiers may sometimes "buck the market" by making single bids but that does not justify adopting peak-market yields without proper adjustment; and that profit on a subsequent sale of a purchased contract does not automatically bar recovery of associated acquisition costs where causation and reasonableness are otherwise established (which was not applied on the facts here).