William George Potter Irmgard Erica Potter v London Borough of Hillingdon

Decision date: 28 June 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 212 (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 was a compulsory purchase reference for 4.38 ha at Harmondsworth where the claimants sought £6–12m based on an earlier option/ransom and potential airport-related development. The Tribunal rejected the claimants' unsupported higher figures, accepted expert evidence that existing-use value plus modest discounted "hope value" produced a compensation figure of £1,000,000, and made a split costs order.

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

An option price that was negotiated for a materially different earlier scheme does not automatically establish a ransom value for a later, different scheme; the relevant scheme to be disregarded when applying the rule is to be identified by reference to the essential public purpose of the acquisition (here, creation of a park), and speculative hope value for large infrastructure development must be discounted for delay and risk so that any addition to existing-use value is modest and evidence-based.

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 as obiter that valuers should follow a methodical statutory-assumption approach under the Land Compensation Act before applying additional assumptions under the rule, that claimants should present expert valuation and legal evidence for large claims, and that, when in doubt, the scheme should be identified more narrowly rather than broadly.