David Mosche Halpern Patrick William Gladwell Clearun Limited Dominion Mosaic & Tile Company Ltd v Greater London Authority
Decision date: 18 March 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 116 (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 concerns compensation after compulsory acquisition of Clearun Wharf under the LDA CPO, chiefly whether planning permission should be assumed under LCA 1961 s.16(3) or whether s.14(3) "hope value" or existing use value applied, and the quantification of disturbance to the business. The Tribunal held the site was not an "allocation" under s.16(3), applied an existing use valuation uplifted by a 15% hope premium (giving a land value of £2,127,500), rejected total business extinguishment, and awarded total compensation of £2,580,747 with a specified costs order.
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
The Tribunal indicates that a planning policy covering a wide area with flexible aspirations is not necessarily a site "allocation" for s.16(3); allocation requires sufficient specificity/site-level identification. If s.16(3) does not apply, s.14(3) permits valuation on hope value only where planning permission can reasonably be expected within a proper period, and the timing of likely implementation and viability must inform any uplift from existing use value. The statutory disregard under s.6 applies only to value changes attributable to the acquisition, and other safeguarding effects may be disregarded if they would not materially affect value.
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 that expert claims about business extinguishment and losses need clear contemporaneous factual support and will be treated cautiously if coming from single interested sources; a sale of a business "as a going concern" usually undermines a claim of total extinguishment; and long-standing sealed offers can be a material factor in costs decisions, with late withdrawal potentially justifying limits on cost recovery.