Earl Cadogan v Dorritt Moussaieff
Decision date: 15 September 2005
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
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 consolidated appeal concerned the appropriate capital valuations and deferment rates for several central London enfranchisement and lease-extension claims, notably 40 Chelsea Square. The Tribunal upheld the LVT's freehold vacant possession value for 40 Chelsea Square at £11.5m but revised the general deferment rate for Cadogan Estate houses to 4.5% (with 32 Rosary Gardens at 6.4%), producing specified purchase prices and premiums. The appellant Mr Arbib's challenge to value failed and he was ordered to pay Earl Cadogan's costs for that appeal.
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 reliable land-market evidence of reversions is lacking, tribunals may use financial-market evidence (for example, index-linked gilts as a risk-free base together with a suitable risk premium net of expected growth) to assess appropriate deferment rates; historic or conventional figures (such as a standing 6%) do not bind the tribunal, and each deferment rate must be justified with evidence relevant to the valuation date and facts.
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 professional guidance such as the RICS "Red Book" is not determinative for statutory valuations and that settlement evidence can be admissible but is potentially unreliable (e.g. self-perpetuating "Delaforce" effects) and must be treated with caution when assigning weight.