The Keepers and Governors of the Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon (A Charity) v City of Westminster Council

Decision date: 3 May 2012

Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 117 (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 concerned compensation under s.203/article 9 after Westminster City Council refused consent in February 2005 to fell a robinia protected by a TPO, and the owner of 147 Hamilton Terrace subsequently carried out underpinning works. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the robinia caused a real risk of further subsidence, that the risk and need for underpinning were reasonably foreseeable to the authority at the refusal date, and that the claimant had not failed to mitigate. It awarded £68,511.58 plus simple interest from 14 July 2005 and costs.

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

For preventive works the proper causation inquiry is whether it was reasonable for the claimant to have undertaken the works when done, assessed by (a) the degree of risk of future harm and (b) the appropriateness of the remedial response judged at the time the works were put in hand. For the article 9(4)(b) defence, foreseeability is judged by reference to the information supplied with the application and other material reasonably available to the authority at the decision date.

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 limits to expert criticism when it lies outside an expert's speciality (e.g. structural engineer criticising arboricultural procedure). It also noted that a final cost exceeding an initial pre‑tender estimate does not of itself require reduction if the type of loss was foreseeable, and that DNA root testing might be informative though its absence did not prevent a causation finding on available evidence.