Michael Wilson Harris Glenis Harris v The Highways Agency

Decision date: 6 February 2012

Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 17 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This appeal concerns whether Mr and Mrs Harris' blight notice was invalid because they failed to satisfy s.150(1)(b) and (c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after a draft CPO remained unconfirmed. The Tribunal found the claimants did not prove they made reasonable endeavours to sell or that blight prevented sale except at a substantially reduced price, and that their marketing and valuation evidence was insufficient. The Highways Agency's counter-notice was upheld and the blight notice held invalid.

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

Where a compulsory purchase order remains in draft and unconfirmed, a claimant relying on a blight notice bears the burden of proving they made reasonable endeavours to sell (s.150(1)(b)) and that they could not sell except at a substantially reduced price because of the blight (s.150(1)(c)); unsupported or inadequate documentary and valuation evidence of marketing and realistic value will not discharge that burden.

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 noted it would be prudent for a claimant to obtain professional legal and surveying advice and a formal valuation tailored to the statutory reference; it also commented that the mere existence of related live orders does not necessarily demonstrate an intention to revive a cancelled scheme without further variation and consultation.