Andrew Lewicki v Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council
Decision date: 18 April 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 120 (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 case concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of 31 Ludford Road, Nuneaton, including the market value of the house, whether a redevelopment (residual) value existed, and disputed disturbance items. The tribunal fixed market value as an existing house at £84,000, rejected the claimant’s residual (redevelopment) valuation as unreliable, allowed specified disturbance items totaling additional sums, assessed total compensation at £99,794.45, and ordered the acquiring authority to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis.
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 treated open-market sales and CPO settlement prices as comparable evidence of value and, where differences were not significant, could regard them as similar indicators of market value. It also held that residual (redevelopment) valuations prepared for arbitration, unsupported by reliable planning or build-cost evidence and contrary to planning officer comment, are insufficient to displace an existing-use valuation.
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 optimistic or inconsistent descriptions in comparable schedules can undermine their reliability as evidence. It also observed that a s.17 certificate may have limited value where residential use is common ground and would not have aided the residual valuation in the circumstances.