MR CYRIL RAPOSE and others v London Borough of Wandsworth
Decision date: 22 April 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 172 (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 compensation claims arising from the compulsory purchase of 312–320 Earlsfield Road, principally Mr Sajid Haq's claim to home-loss, occupier's-loss and disturbance/business payments. The Tribunal found he was a gratuitous licensee with no proprietary interest, had not proved any quantifiable removal or disturbance loss, and that Apex Travel's claims were compromised by its prior authorisation of a representative. The reference was dismissed with effect from 30 October 2014 for insufficiency of evidence and non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.
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
From the judgment: a person occupying property as a gratuitous licensee who does not establish a proprietary or other qualifying interest is not entitled to statutory home-loss or occupier's-loss payments; and a claimant seeking a disturbance payment must show lawful possession predating notice and prove reasonably incurred and quantified removal or disturbance expenses.
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 indicates (obiter) that a claimant or entity's prior authority to a representative to settle claims can bind that claimant/entity and preclude later attempts to reopen settled claims, and that repeating previously dismissed procedural challenges without new material will not revive compensation claims.