Acrofame Properties Ltd v London Development Agency
Decision date: 10 July 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 107 (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 determined compensation after compulsory acquisition of two Dagenham properties. The Tribunal rejected Acrofame's primary case that disturbance under rule (6) could be based on the site's hotel development value, valued the retail unit and flats at 4 Chequers Corner and the 8–12 New Road site on a residential redevelopment basis, disallowed holding costs and limited pre-reference fees, and awarded total compensation of £634,751.49 with specified costs orders.
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 Tribunal held that a rule (6) disturbance claim cannot include losses that are directly derived from the value of the land (development value), and that valuation under rule (2) must reflect the actual condition of the land at the valuation date rather than treating a not-yet-existing completed development as if it existed.
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 suggested (obiter) that claimants relying on development-based losses should consistently claim lost pre-acquisition profits under rule (6) while valuing the land under rule (2) as a development site (residual/developer value), and that tribunals will scrutinise late comparables and indexation, giving reduced weight to older comparables.