Barbara Haywood and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport

Decision date: 20 August 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 298 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 case concerns compensation for 35 compulsory acquisitions of subsoil interests for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (London tunnels) where notices to treat/entry were served in 2001. The Tribunal fixed nominal compensation (generally £50) for most subsoil interests, refused compensation for a set of leases created after service of the notice to treat, and stayed determination of one claim pending investigation of alleged damage. Statutory interest was awarded from 1 September 2009 and no order as to costs was made.

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

The Tribunal treated as payable only nominal compensation where the subsoil had no market value apart from acquisition by the authority exercising compulsory powers, adopting £50 per subsoil interest; and it held that it had no power to award compensation for leasehold interests created after service of a notice to treat (those claims drawing nil compensation).

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 indicated that, absent evidence of disturbance, severance or injurious affection, compensation under the relevant rules may properly be nil; and that diligent attempts by an acquiring authority to locate and notify claimants can justify proceeding to determination on the authority’s valuation evidence when claimants do not engage.

Warning

Document contains duplicated passages and formatting artefacts; care needed when cross-referencing the appendix. Notes contain duplicated passages and formatting artefacts; cross-referencing the appendix in the judgment may be necessary for full detail.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML