Peter Downey v HMRC

Decision date: 26 June 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 228 (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 market value of a leasehold maisonette at 47 Boscombe Road as at 20 April 2016. The Tribunal held that the VOA expert’s floor‑area (£/sq m) approach overstated value because the subject was an outlier in size and in very poor condition, and allowed the appeal, reducing the value for tax purposes to £670,000.

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

Where a subject property is a market outlier in size and in notably worse condition than available comparables, a straight £/sq m comparison with smaller, better‑condition comparables can overstate market value; adjustments for size and condition must be made against the actual range of market prices for the specific property type and facts to arrive at a reliable valuation.

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 that post‑valuation marketing advice and subsequent sales or offers are not determinative of value at the valuation date but can reinforce conclusions derived from contemporaneous comparables; it also noted that commonly used adjustments (for example a percentage for outdoor space or a per‑square‑metre deduction for poor condition) may be reasonable in practice but require scrutiny against market evidence.