ROSALIE A STEPHENSON WINIFRED E STEPHENSON v East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Decision date: 7 February 2013

Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 64 (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 determined the compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of 11 Manor Road, Beverley, with valuation date 3 February 2012. The council sold the vested property by a competitive tender process which produced a highest bid of £205,000, but the council's valuer had assessed open market value at £169,000; the tribunal found deficiencies in the valuer's comparable-based evidence and accepted the properly conducted tender result, awarding £205,000.

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

A properly conducted competitive sale or tender can establish the market value of property for compensation purposes and may be preferred over an expert's comparable-based valuation where that expert's methodology is inadequately explained or supported (for example, unexplained added refurbishment costs, absence of a post-refurbishment market value, and a wide/unsupported comparable range).

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 confidential tender processes can nevertheless produce reliable evidence of market value where there is clear competitive bidding, and that auction results—being transparently competitive—provide a clear indication of market level; similar properly conducted competitive processes may be treated analogously.

Warning

The chunk contains some duplicated passages and formatting artefacts; care taken to avoid repeating those. Notes include duplicated passages and formatting artefacts and may be materially incomplete.