Mr J Money Mr C Carey-Morgan Mr J R Davies v CADOGAN HOLDINGS LTD
Decision date: 26 June 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 211 (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 concerned the LVT's allowance of £161,750 to the freeholder for loss of a caretaker-flat restriction when determining the enfranchisement price for 15 Tite Street. The Upper Tribunal held that such an uplift is not necessarily "marriage value" excluded by Schedule 6 paragraph 4(2A) and can, in principle, be reflected in the freeholder's valuation under paragraph 3 by appropriate market assumptions. However the LVT's method of quantifying the uplift was flawed, so the matter was remitted to the LVT for re‑valuation rather than the Tribunal substituting a new figure.
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
Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 6 permits valuers to adopt additional "appropriate" assumptions about market expectations (including the prospects of payment for covenant release) when valuing the freeholder's interest; paragraph 4 defines marriage value narrowly (linked to ability to obtain new leases) and does not automatically exclude other market-derived values from being taken into account under paragraph 3, provided double counting is avoided.
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 judgment emphasises the need to respect the distinction between marriage value (assessed under paragraph 4) and hope/market value (reflected under paragraph 3) to avoid double recovery. It also noted that Human Rights Act/Article 1 arguments were unnecessary to decide the appeal.