OLUBUNMI JOHN v London Borough of Southwark

Decision date: 9 December 2014

Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 538 (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 determined compensation for Ms Olubunmi John's 125-year leasehold of 28 Wolverton, Aylesbury Estate, as at valuation date 21 August 2013. The Tribunal assessed competing expert valuations, adjusted on-estate comparables for scheme blight, and fixed open market value at £184,000. It allowed reasonable pre-reference surveyor fees of £1,750 plus VAT, declined any separate disturbance award for lack of evidence, and confirmed a 10% home loss payment and agreed conveyancing costs. Costs were reserved with directions following sealed offers.

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

The Tribunal applied a principle that on-estate comparables affected by the redevelopment "scheme effect" (scheme blight) should be adjusted when used to assess open market value—here a 10% allowance was applied to adopted on-estate comparables—and that expert comparables must be closely comparable in construction, location and supported by documented sale evidence; marketed asking prices cannot be treated as equivalent to sale prices.

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 judgment comments (not as binding ratio) that settlements or sales involving the acquiring authority may reflect the scheme effect and so are not necessarily reliable indicators of open market value, and that the Tribunal will not make awards for disturbance or other non-land-value losses without specific evidence quantifying those losses.