David Trevor Fisk v Suffolk County Council

Decision date: 7 September 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 214 (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 concerned a Part I Land Compensation Act 1973 claim by David Fisk for depreciation of 39 Grimwade Close caused by a 40m spur of Pioneer Way. The tribunal found the hypothetical "switched‑off" value at 1 September 2021 was £400,000 and awarded a round‑sum discount of £10,000 (2.5%) for compensable physical factors (notably all‑night rear lighting and traffic noise). The claimant was awarded £10,000; there is a right of appeal on a point of law.

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 the switched‑off/switched‑on valuation method under Part I LCA 1973, comparing the market value with specified physical factors caused by the works removed ("switched off") to the actual market position. Where small differences are difficult to quantify precisely, the tribunal may make a reasonable round‑sum allowance that a purchaser would have deducted to reflect compensable physical effects.

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 a purchaser at the valuation date would likely have expected part‑night lighting at some stage, but there was no certainty it would have occurred by that date; and mitigation measures implemented after the valuation date (such as acoustic fencing installed late in 2021) would not necessarily have been expected by a purchaser at the valuation date.