Andrew Bennett v Birmingham Airport Limited
Decision date: 22 August 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 228 (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 records a Part 1 Land Compensation Act claim by Andrew Bennett that Birmingham Airport’s runway extension materially increased aircraft noise at his home and so depreciated its market value; the Tribunal found a measurable increase in peak-event noise and awarded £75,000 compensation. The Tribunal rejected the claimant valuer’s inclusion of an “equivalence” or personal-compensation element beyond market diminution, fixed the switched-on value at £485,000 and the switched-off value at about £560,000. Permission to appeal on points of law remains available.
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 compensation under Part 1 is assessed by reference to market value at the relevant first claim day, requiring the Tribunal to determine how the prescribed physical change affected the market rather than individual subjective loss; expert noise evidence is required to prove a change in a prescribed physical factor, but valuation must be market-focused and cannot include a separate “equivalence” personal-compensation element.
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 non-binding observations that peak-event noise metrics (e.g. LAmax/peak-event measures) may better reflect lay perceptions of intrusive aircraft events than long-period LAeq measures, that long-period indexation and broad comparable sweeps have limited utility, and that purchasers’ reactions to occasional heavy/noisy events seen during viewings can disproportionately affect bids.