Adrian Philip Glasspool v London Borough of Southwark
Decision date: 6 November 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] UKUT 373 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This is a compulsory purchase compensation reference concerning the open market value and disturbance payable for 49 Cuddington, a leasehold maisonette on the Heygate Estate, with possession taken under a general vesting declaration on 6 November 2013. The key issues were the proper valuation date and the amount of disturbance (items left and future acquisition costs); the valuation date was agreed/found to be 6 November 2013 and the parties agreed entitlement to a 10% home loss payment of open market value. The Tribunal heard competing expert evidence and recorded the parties' valuation and disturbance figures for determination under the simplified procedure.
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
From the notes, the identifiable ratio is that, for this compulsory acquisition, the valuation date is the date possession was taken under the General Vesting Declaration (6 November 2013), and the home loss payment entitlement can be calculated as 10% of the agreed open market value.
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 background material—such as the long history of Southwark’s review and redevelopment proposals from 1998 onward and factual matters about the cessation of district heating and tenant-installed boilers—which are discussed as relevant context but are not determinative on the principal valuation and disturbance issues and thus appear as obiter observations.
Warning
- The chunk contains substantial repetition of the same material, which may reflect drafting duplication rather than distinct facts. Notes contain repetition and are limited to a single extracted chunk; they may be incomplete on detailed reasoning and final numeric determinations.