David Jean Michel Maurice Coudrier and others v The Secretary of State for Transport
Decision date: 1 April 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 92 (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 28 references arising from the Secretary of State's compulsory acquisition of subsoil interests for CTRL Section 2. The Tribunal determined 21 references awarding nominal market value of £50 each plus £500 legal/surveying fees and statutory interest from 1 September 2002, adjourned three Manbey Grove references for further preparation, stayed two other references for 28 days, and gave directions on two British Waterways references. No compensation was awarded for injurious affection, severance or disturbance in the determined matters.
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
Where a subsoil interest has no open market demand except to a compulsory purchaser, compensation may be limited to a nominal market value; the Tribunal may also refuse to determine or adjourn references when claimants lack adequate notice or opportunity to prepare (for example, late hearing notification or late service of expert reports).
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 notes indicate (obiter) that claims for losses such as those arising from underpinning may fall to be pursued under a different statutory route (Schedule 2 paragraph 8) distinct from compensation for subsoil acquisition, and that procedural non‑compliance (e.g. failure to file a statement of case) can lead to limitations on a claimant's ability to call evidence while leaving rights to cross‑examine.