(1) Adrian Robertson & Kathleen Robertson (2) Andrew Spark & Annette Spark v Manchester Airport plc
Decision date: 25 October 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 370 (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 appeal concerned two linked claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973 by owners of Smith Lane Farm and Burnside alleging depreciation from Manchester Airport’s new Runway 2. The Tribunal found that an about 3 dB daytime noise increase by the first claim day (and predicted greater increases) and occasional wake‑vortex vibration were compensatable physical factors and awarded Burnside £40,000 and Smith Lane Farm £72,500; aircraft‑fumes claims were rejected. The airport was also ordered to pay claimants’ costs, in part because it had resisted disclosure of a nearby confidential settlement which was nevertheless admitted.
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
Where an aerodrome alteration causes physical effects (here, increased aircraft noise and occasional wake‑vortex vibration), compensation under the 1973 Act is assessed by reference to the use of the land on the first claim day, taking into account any intensification reasonably to be expected on that date; market evidence about how prospective purchasers would perceive and value those physical effects is admissible and relevant to assessing depreciation. Confidential settlements may be ordered disclosed and admitted where relevance and consent permit, with weight for such settlements a matter for the tribunal.
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 indicated that a c.3 dB daytime noise increase should not be treated as necessarily insignificant and that significance must be judged by combining expert guidance with actual subjective effects on occupants and likely purchaser experiences (including visits and both landing and takeoff noise). It also commented that valuation evidence needs transparent comparables and explained adjustments, and that unexplained end adjustments undermine an expert’s weight.