Compare the Market Ltd v Karen Giles

Decision date: 23 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 77 (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 the rateable valuation of a hereditament made up of two separate office buildings (Pegasus House and Saxon House) assessed together. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting a 10% quantum (size) allowance and making a 5% allowance for Pegasus House's internal layout inefficiencies, determining a rateable value of £905,000. The VTE decision was overturned and the Tribunal treated layout and fragmentation as separate adjustments.

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

From the judgment it can be taken that, where component adjustments (such as internal layout inefficiency and physical fragmentation) are in dispute, the Tribunal may and should separate and assess those elements individually rather than applying a single holistic end allowance; and that comparables relied on must be sufficiently similar in size, age and character to carry weight.

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 contains observations that reliance on an excessive number of comparables without careful selection is unhelpful, and that campus-style or multi-building sites with shared characteristics can provide useful but not determinative guidance for allowances in atypical layouts.

Warning

The chunk includes formatting artefacts and duplicated/misaligned textual elements which make parts of the transcript difficult to read. Some notes contain formatting artefacts and duplicated or misaligned text; the record may be incomplete or noisy.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML