Ramac Holdings Limited v Kent County Council
Decision date: 3 April 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 109 (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 compensation payable to Ramac Holdings for compulsory acquisition of a 7,709 sqm roadside/landscape strip under the East Kent Access Phase 1C CPO and related claims for injurious affection, disturbance, pre-reference costs, betterment and costs. The Tribunal held the reference land must be valued on the hypothetical sale of that parcel alone and assessed it as amenity/roadside land at £38,545 (an alternative industrial valuation of £245,000 was also assessed); injurious affection was not established, disturbance and pre-reference costs were awarded, no betterment deduction under s.261 Highways Act 1980 was made, and total compensation was fixed at £67,008.26 plus interest with a detailed apportionment of costs reflecting the acquiring authority’s unreasonable conduct on the betterment issue.
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, under rule (2) of s.5 LCA 1961, the reference land must be valued as if sold in isolation (not by aggregating hypothetical development of the retained estate); any loss to retained land is addressed separately by severance/injurious affection principles. Disturbance under rule (6) is recoverable only for losses caused by the acquisition or dispossession (or the threat thereof), and betterment under s.261 requires robust evidence that the scheme increased the market value of the remaining land.
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 (obiter) that expert valuation evidence which aggregates development capacity must properly address total site constraints (for example junction capacity) and that parties should reassess positions promptly when rebuttal reports undermine assumptions. It also noted that costs departures under s.4(1) may be justified where an acquiring authority’s unreasonable litigation conduct on a discrete issue causes unnecessary expense.