Richard Gennard v Leicester City Council
Decision date: 9 April 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 121 (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 a restrictive covenant on nursery land reduced the consideration paid at an August 1999 auction such that compensation was payable under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Tribunal found that the development policy in force at the 1999 valuation date (MLP 1999, policy OS2) meant purchasers were unlikely to have had a realistic expectation of future development, there was no evidence the restriction depressed the 1999 sale price, and accordingly no compensation was payable under s.84(2). The Tribunal also found grounds (aa) and (c) were made out and ordered modification of the covenant to permit implementation of the 30 November 2022 planning permission (including renewals and matters approved under its conditions).
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
When assessing compensation under s.84(2) LPA 1925 the decisive inquiry is what the vendor and purchaser would have contemplated at the valuation date, having regard to the planning policy and constraints in force at that date; later changes in planning policy are relevant only if, on the evidence, purchasers at the valuation date would have had a realistic expectation of such change affecting 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 indicated that previous decisions endorsing simple percentage uplifts for "hope value" are highly fact‑specific and of limited precedential weight, and that evidence of strong auction bidding (large uplifts above guide prices) may undermine assertions that a restriction depressed the sale price.