ELITESTONE LIMITED v ELITESTONE LIMITED v NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC
Decision date: 2 September 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 452 (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 Elitestone Ltd's claims for compensation under compulsory acquisition rights granted to National Grid Gas for a high‑pressure pipeline across two Parcels, including disturbance, loss of mineral and development value, and diminution of a restrictive covenant. The Tribunal found the claimant had not proved compensatable loss on any head and assessed compensation at nil; NGG was awarded costs on the standard basis from 14 February 2014, and the earlier advance payment need not be repaid.
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 applied that injurious affection under section 7 must be assessed by reference to the injury caused by the powers as actually or realistically likely to be exercised and by what a reasonably diligent purchaser could have ascertained at the valuation date; speculative or highly remote possibilities do not justify compensation. Disturbance claims require proof of real, specific loss within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and cannot be established by general industry/tariff payments absent evidence of statutory entitlement.
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 observed that a speculative purchaser is a risk‑taker who will value land accordingly and will not normally adopt a development‑deferred valuation; contemporaneous project records and reasonable enquiries (e.g. to the HSE/operator) inform what a purchaser would know, and theoretical possibilities in CPO wording that are highly remote are insufficient to support compensation.