Mandarin Corporation Ltd (formerly Thai Concept and Cuisine Ltd) v Kathryn Patricia Phillips (VO)

Decision date: 21 April 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 115 (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 appeal concerned whether a further material change of circumstance (MCC) allowance was due to Mandarin Corporation for disruption caused by the St Mary Street works associated with the St David's 2 redevelopment. The tribunal found that a 20% MCC allowance already granted (with a negotiated effective date of 10 January 2007 reflected in VO/committee communications) had taken the St Mary Street effects into account. The appeal was dismissed and Mandarin ordered to pay the Valuation Officer’s costs.

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 decision treats negotiated, pragmatic percentage allowances agreed between the Valuation Office and representative surveyors (and evidenced by committee reports and emails) as properly admissible to show whether an existing MCC allowance already reflected particular disruptive works; where parties have so agreed, an agreed earlier "equated effective date" for that allowance may be applied to the hereditament.

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 judgment suggests that a pragmatic approach to many MCC proposals is acceptable where rental or footfall evidence is inconclusive, and notes the Valuation Officer’s duty to maintain an accurate rating list and to correct assessments if previously agreed areas are found to be incorrect.