Michael Michael v Salford City Council
Decision date: 6 September 2016
Neutral citation: [2016] UKUT 370 (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 market value to be awarded for compulsory acquisition of 212 Great Clowes Street, Salford, at the valuation date 28 April 2008. The Tribunal held the land should be valued on the basis of the standalone planning permission obtainable without third‑party land (the Michael permission) and, using a residual valuation cross‑checked against market evidence, fixed the land value at £280,000; claims for a 10% “premium” and a separate developer’s profit were rejected. Recoverable fees, basic loss at 7.5% (£21,000) and other specified sums were awarded, giving total compensation (excluding interest) of £321,702.61, with the claimant entitled to recover reasonable costs subject to deductions.
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
Where a site benefits from a standalone planning permission that can be implemented without third‑party land, valuation for compulsory purchase purposes should be based on that permission rather than by apportioning a larger scheme that extends beyond the subject land; residual valuation results must be tested and cross‑checked against comparable market evidence because small changes in inputs materially affect outcomes.
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 criticised expert practice where reports adopt client‑centred language (“my client”) and emphasised the need to follow proper valuation guidance; it warned that uncorroborated offers, bulk or portfolio sales and hearsay may be unreliable as market evidence, and that unrepresented claimants should avoid prolix “kitchen sink” presentations and late changes to expert positions.