GPE Hanover Square Ltd. 18/19 Hanover Square No 1 Ltd. 18/19 Hanover Square No.2 Ltd v Transport for London
Decision date: 28 May 2013
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 417 (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 concerned valuation principles under the Land Compensation Act 1961 following compulsory acquisition by Crossrail of interests in 18 & 19 Hanover Square and 1A Tenterden Street. The Tribunal decided as a preliminary issue that s.9 does not allow the valuer to assume the acquired freehold/long leasehold interests or their lease terms were different from how they actually stood at the valuation date; valuation must reflect the interest "as it actually was". A further preliminary issue about recovery of past rent shortfall under rule (6) was deferred to the principal hearing. Costs for the first preliminary issue were awarded to the acquiring authority.
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 binding ratio is that section 9 of the 1961 Act requires exclusion of depreciation attributable to an indication of compulsory acquisition but does not permit the valuation exercise to alter the identity of the acquired interest or to assume different lease parties or lease terms from those actually subsisting at the valuation date; open market value under rule (2) must be assessed of each acquired interest as it actually existed, including the entirety of prevailing lease terms.
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 (not strictly binding) on the limits of hypothetically reconstructing past events under s.9, the interaction of s.9 with other provisions (such as s.6 and planning-assumption rules), and practical/anomaly-based objections to a broad reconstructive approach; it also notes precedents favouring a "presumption of reality" against speculative re‑construction of historical lease negotiations.