London Borough of Newham v Terry Navarro Peart

Decision date: 29 March 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 126 (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 the amount of compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of 72 Cranmer Road, vested 5 November 2002. The owner did not participate and the acquiring authority’s expert valuation evidence was accepted, the tribunal deducting estimated repair/refurbishment costs and allowing a modest purchaser profit/risk to arrive at market value. Compensation was fixed at £175,000 with statutory interest; no order as to 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

Where an owner fails to participate and no competing expert evidence is put before the tribunal, the tribunal may accept credible valuation evidence adduced by the acquiring authority to determine compensation; that compensation may be assessed by valuing the property in its existing state at the valuation date after deducting reasonable refurbishment/repair costs and allowing a commercially realistic margin for purchaser profit and risk.

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 indicates that a purchaser-type buyer (for example a small building firm) and prevailing market strength can justify a modest profit/risk allowance when assessing market value for a property in poor condition, and that a valuer’s experience combined with comparable sales may suffice in the absence of competing expert evidence.