John Bland Charlton & Anor v Northumbrian Water Limited
Decision date: 25 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 313 (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
The Tribunal decided a preliminary issue in a claim by owners of Bleach Green Farm that their land had diminished in value because of an underground sewage storage reservoir nearby. It held that "injurious affection" in Schedule 12 para 2(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 bears the technical meaning developed under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and that "damage to ... any land" in para 2(3) is confined to physical damage or physical factors affecting land, not pure perceptual or non‑physical loss; accordingly the preliminary point was dismissed and the claimants' purely perceptual diminution claim failed.
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 statutory provision in this compensation context uses the term "injurious affection," it should be given the established technical meaning from the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 unless a contrary intention appears; and the phrase "damage to ... any land" in Schedule 12 para 2(3) WIA 1991 is to be read as covering physical damage or physical factors affecting land (for example smell, noise, vibration, obstruction of light or discharges), not mere market perception or other intangible diminution in value.
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 noted (obiter) that physical factors such as smells, noise, vibration, obstruction of light or discharges may qualify as "damage" under para 2(3), and that persistent physical nuisances arising from the use of works might, depending on the circumstances, give rise to compensation; it did not determine the temporal scope (construction versus continued use) of such claims.