Mr M A Jackson Mrs J W Jackson v The Keepers & Governors of the Possessions Revenue & Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon

Decision date: 18 February 2013

Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 56 (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 valuation for enfranchisement of 101 Hamilton Terrace, disputing (a) whether the LVT double-counted a "Hamilton Terrace" premium on a £1,240/psf base and (b) whether the LVT failed to allow for development and planning risk and costs in its development value. The Upper Tribunal upheld the LVT on the premium point but allowed the leaseholders' challenge on development value, applying a 20% deduction to GDV for combined development and planning risk and fixing the enfranchisement price at £1,536,000.

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: high

The Tribunal held on rehearing that it is not confined to the evidence before the LVT and may consider additional comparable evidence and reassess the LVT’s valuation; valuation methodology matters, and crude averaging across widely dissimilar comparables can be unreliable compared with conventional, adjusted comparisons for nearer matches. These propositions underpin the decision to uphold the LVT’s treatment of the psf premium but to adjust the development uplift for 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 includes observations that a Conservation Area Audit, as supplementary guidance, should generally be afforded less weight than the development plan when assessing planning risk, and that over‑broad use of large composite baskets of diverse comparables without appropriate adjustments can produce misleading averages. These appear as commentary rather than strictly necessary holdings.

Warning

- Chunk contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages; care needed to avoid relying on repeated text as separate points. Notes contain substantial repetition and duplicated passages; they may be incomplete in places.