Terence Charles George Welford v Transport for London
Decision date: 9 April 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 99 (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 case concerns Mr Welford's compensation claim after Transport for London compulsorily acquired a small forecourt and part of a road at World Wide House, with valuation date 27 Feb 2001. The Tribunal rejected most heads of claim (pre-possession rent concession, post-possession letting void, injurious affection to World Wide House, and neighbouring unit loss) and awarded modest sums for the claimant's personal time (£2,500), pre-reference costs (£5,391.50) and a nominal land value (£750), totalling £8,641.50, with a costs direction in favour of the claimant up to 11 Dec 2008.
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 Tribunal's findings, a claimant seeking compensation for a pre-possession rent concession must show the loss was caused by the acquisition itself (not merely by the prospect of roadworks), was not too remote and was reasonably mitigated; and a landlord who voluntarily accepts a surrender from an acquiring authority may be precluded from recovering subsequent void losses where the surrender was a commercial choice and the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate.
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 observed (non-bindingly) that disproportionately extensive written submissions may be criticised and need not be reproduced in full, and commented that betterment under the Highways Act should not be deducted from compensation though it may be relevant when considering injurious affection valuation arguments.