Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Limited v London Borough of Harrow
Decision date: 26 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 197 (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 whether the Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs in a compensation reference under Regulation 24 of the TPO Regulations after a local authority refused consent to fell trees, leading to property damage. The Tribunal held the compensation claim fell within "proceedings for injurious affection of land" under Rule 10(6)(b) and therefore had power to award costs. The compensating authority was ordered to pay the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment.
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 Tribunal decided that a refusal of consent under a Tree Preservation Order which results in damage to property (including cracking and subsidence caused by tree-root-related soil desiccation and loss of load-bearing quality) can constitute injurious affection of land for the purposes of Rule 10(6)(b). Accordingly, compensation references under Regulation 24 arising from such refusals fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make costs orders under the Rules.
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 accepted submissions that soil desiccation and impairment of load-bearing qualities by tree roots can amount to actionable nuisance and that remedial measures (for example root barriers) may be consequential recoverable expenditure; it also rejected the compensating authority’s characterization that the claim was merely for the cost of a root barrier rather than for damage consequent on the authority’s refusal. These observations were made in the course of applying the injurious-affection analysis.