The Earl Cadogan v (1) Farrokh Faizapour (2) John Stephenson
Decision date: 14 January 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 3 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: low
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: low
This is an appeal by the freeholder (Earl Cadogan) against an LVT determination of the price for collective enfranchisement of 54–56 Cadogan Square and 26–28 Clabon Mews, valuation date 13 November 2006. The Tribunal re‑assessed expert evidence on comparable sales and adjustments (lateral layout, floor level, off‑square, condition and planning/demand risk), rejected the LVT figure as too low and substituted a new total price of £17,055,919. Key findings included a 10% allowance for lateral layout, no deduction for future planning/demand risk, and the ordering of non‑physical percentage adjustments before physical condition (spot psf) allowances.
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 treated as determinative that percentage/non‑physical adjustments (time, relativity, location, lateral layout) should be applied before spot (psf) physical condition allowances because the sequence materially affects outcomes; and it held that works carried out during a lease do not automatically justify halving a lateral‑layout allowance where the market incentive and feasibility to combine units support the full allowance.
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 (not as a binding point) that where, at the valuation date, there was no planning restriction and there was precedent/demand for large combined flats, any risk of future adverse planning policy preventing combinations may be too small to warrant a market deduction. It also noted that unusually large lateral units with parking can command a premium above adjusted comparable averages.