MWH Associates Limited v Wrexham County Borough Council

Decision date: 19 July 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 269 (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

MWH sought compensation under s.107 TCPA for a ROMP condition excluding working part of Hafod Quarry which was SSSI/SAC and contained great crested newts. The Tribunal found MWH did not intend to work the claim area and, on the balance of probabilities, a derogation licence to allow translocation and lawful working would have been refused. The claim for compensation therefore failed and no compensation was payable; costs awarded to the council.

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

The Tribunal treated claims for depreciation in land value and loss of profits differently: land-value compensation is governed by the facts at the valuation date and must exclude uses that would have been unlawful then, while loss-of-profits claims require evidence the owner would have exercised the right. Where the proposed use would have remained unlawful because a derogation licence would not have been granted (thereby failing regulatory consent), that use must be disregarded in valuing the land and can defeat causation for 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 observed that a derogation-licence application should be considered in the context of the whole site and that an IROPI justification would be the appropriate legal basis where applicable. It also noted limits on relying solely on prior lawful operation as a defence to species-protection offences in light of ECJ guidance and subsequent legal changes.