Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency
Decision date: 26 July 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 158 (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 quantum of disturbance payable to Solartrack Plc after the LDA acquired 42–44 New Road by agreement and confirmed CPO. The Tribunal found Solartrack had not shown it would have been viable or profitable absent the acquisition, rejected many claimed heads of disturbance as not caused by or reasonably incurred because of the CPO, and accepted a notional relocation approach. Compensation for disturbance was fixed at £72,500 and detailed costs directions were given.
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 a claimant cannot establish that its business would have been viable or would have become profitable but for the acquisition (or its “shadow”), claims for loss of profits and goodwill linked to the acquisition may fail; an acquiring authority can discharge its mitigation burden by demonstrating that practical relocation was available and that the claimant unreasonably failed to relocate, in which case compensation may be assessed on a notional relocation basis.
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 indicated that contemporaneous trading records and objective indicators may outweigh investor transactions and internal plans when assessing viability, and that conduct such as advance payments or urging early completion can be relevant to causation and reasonableness of claimed losses.