Nofax Station Road Limited v The London Brough of Barnet
Decision date: 28 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 241 (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 concerns compensation for compulsory acquisition of a 0.12‑acre landscaped strip of a site, the valuation date being 1 November 2019, and whether an appropriate alternative development (AAD) on the no‑scheme/cancelled‑scheme assumption would have been permitted and how that affects valuation. The Tribunal applies the Curzon Park “broad brush” method to decide AAD on the cancelled‑scheme assumption and must choose between the claimant’s residual AAD case (53 units) and the acquiring authority’s valuation treating the strip as amenity land. The outcome on quantum remained in dispute, with markedly different valuation figures advanced.
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
The judgment treats the no‑scheme principle as requiring the scheme to be assumed cancelled at the valuation date and applies known market circumstances at that date to a broad‑brush AAD assessment; s.14 permits consideration of actual or prospective planning permissions only subject to the statutory cancelled‑scheme and no‑scheme assumptions. This AAD/broad‑brush approach and the valuation date rule constitute the binding ratio that governed the Tribunal’s assessment.
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: low
The notes record observations that it is theoretically implausible to assume on the same date both cancellation, a sale and a separate grant of planning permission, and reiterate prior guidance that where a proposed scheme contravenes design standards the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that permission would nevertheless have been granted. These comments appear as non‑binding judicial observations rather than determinative holdings.