Sheila Grace Hall v London Borough of Hillingdon
Decision date: 17 November 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 606 (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 determined compensation for compulsory acquisition of a 0.31 ha scrap yard (Rose Cottages) taken by the London Borough of Hillingdon, with valuation date 23 July 2008. The claimant's claims for ransom/special-purchaser value and for hope-value (development value) were rejected; the tribunal accepted the acquiring authority's expert evidence and awarded existing-use value of £532,000 plus £20,000 disturbance, total £552,000. The claimant lacked expert valuation/planning evidence and its late factual witnesses did not overcome that disadvantage; the tribunal exercised its costs discretion and made no order for costs.
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
A landowner is entitled to ransom or special-purchaser uplift only if the purchaser genuinely retains special-purchaser status and attendant acquisition obligations at the relevant valuation date; where that status and obligations have ceased before the valuation date, no ransom compensation arises. In cases involving Green Belt land, prospective "hope" or development value requires a realistic prospect of obtaining implementable planning permission and favourable market conditions; absent those, existing-use value (including any trade-specific premium) should determine compensation.
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 indicated it may admit late factual evidence in the interests of fairness but will not encourage procedural delay. It also observed that offers made by a special purchaser while under acquisition obligations are weak evidence of open market value at a later unrelated valuation date.