Selfridges Limited v Steven Williams Humphries (Valuation Officer)

Decision date: 12 March 2010

Neutral citation: [2009] UKUT 296 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This appeal concerned costs after Selfridges accepted the Valuation Officer's sealed Calderbank offer to settle the substantive rateable value at £14,000,000. The Tribunal held the reasonable date for acceptance of the 8 October 2009 offer was 20 October 2009 and apportioned costs accordingly: the respondent pays the appellant's costs up to and including 20 October 2009, and the appellant pays the respondent's costs from and including 21 October 2009; unresolved items to be assessed on the standard basis. The parties agreed the substantive rateable value from 1 April 2004.

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 held that a Calderbank/sealed offer need not specify detailed costs terms to be effective and that the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to determine costs where the parties have not agreed them; further, the usual 21‑day Part 36 period is not inflexible in Tribunal proceedings and a shorter reasonable period may be appropriate where the hearing is imminent and the parties are prepared — here a 12‑day period from 8 October to 20 October 2009 was reasonable.

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 observed that omitting cost terms from a Calderbank offer is undesirable and does not justify delay in responding, and that prior informal assurances about cost sharing cannot be relied on indefinitely once a reasonable acceptance period has passed and circumstances have changed.