Nigel J G Mockford v Durham County Council
Decision date: 11 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 371 (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 was a purchase-notice reference about c.242 sqm of former school/amenity land behind 22 The Bank, Barnard Castle, with dispute over residual valuation inputs, principally construction cost, for a hypothetical school. The tribunal accepted contemporaneous BCIS-derived build costs (£500/m²) over the claimant expert's lower, unsupported figures, found development value nil and amenity value £500, and awarded compensation of £500. The tribunal also made costs directions: the acquiring authority to pay the claimant's surveyor fee (£1,410) and the claimant to pay the authority's costs (£2,795).
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
Where impartial, contemporaneous industry indices (here BCIS) are available, they can be an objective and generally respected guide to construction costs and may properly be preferred in residual valuation over unsupported prior-valuation figures; expert reliance on prior valuations without documentary verification reduces the weight of that evidence. Also, if an award does not exceed an acquiring authority's earlier unconditional offer, statutory principles support ordering the claimant to bear costs incurred after that offer unless special reasons exist.
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 noted that client confidentiality offers limited protection for comparables: reasonable redaction is acceptable but should not prevent verification of expert comparables; and that unsworn quotation letters about dissimilar construction types carry little weight without supporting evidence and opportunity for cross-examination.