Aury Shoa Rosie Shoa v Maria Nikoltseva Olga Kosstych
Decision date: 16 March 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 73 (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 appeal concerned the premium payable for a 69.82-year lease extension of 261 Portobello Road, where the parties disagreed on the freehold vacant possession value and the appropriate relativity to convert that freehold value to an extended lease value. The Upper Tribunal accepted the LVT's time-adjusted sale price, applied a 5% deduction for improvements and the Savills 2003 table to arrive at FHVP, derived a without-rights relativity of 87% by applying the parties' agreed deduction for tenants' statutory rights to a with-rights table figure, and allowed the appeal but capped the award at £58,000.
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: medium
Where the parties have agreed a specific discount to reflect the detriment of tenants' statutory rights, it is permissible and can be more reliable to apply that agreed deduction to a cogent with-rights relativity from an accepted table rather than to construct an average from less reliable external relativity graphs. A sale of the subject property close to the valuation date can be treated as the best market evidence and time-adjusted by reference to an agreed index where unchallenged.
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 expressed that averaging several imperfect relativity graphs is less reliable than using agreed, cogent evidence; and that expert witnesses should not expand or alter valuations after the hearing, such late changes may be rejected.
Warning
chunk contains substantial repetition and formatting/artifact noise; some figures and percentage references are repeated and slightly inconsistent in the text. chunk contains substantial repetition and some inconsistent figures and formatting artifacts; notes may be materially noisy.