ARNOLD WHITE ESTATES LIMITED v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
Decision date: 16 April 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 5 (LC)
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 appeal concerned compensation under para 7 Schedule 4 of the Electricity Act 1989 after National Grid obtained a 15-year statutory wayleave for a 400kV line across Arnold White Estates' "pylon land". The Tribunal held that a genuine, registrable conditional contract for sale of the pylon strip could establish the owner's special value and be used to assess compensation where causation, remoteness and reasonableness are satisfied, and it assessed compensation as the difference between that contract price (indexed to £5,829,477) and the real‑world value of the land at the valuation date. The Tribunal found the real‑world value effectively nominal after accounting for planning constraints and costs, and awarded AWE costs on the standard basis.
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
A properly constituted conditional contract for sale of land, if genuine and registrable (and not merely personal), may be relied on to demonstrate the landowner's special value and used in assessing compensation under para 7 Schedule 4, provided the loss claimed meets tests of causation, remoteness and reasonableness; compensation may therefore exceed mere diminution in open market value to include owner‑specific loss resulting directly from the grant.
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 treats conventional distinctions in valuation practice as informative: (a) difference between market value with the burden and an arbitrageur's price reflects injurious affection, and (b) difference between an arbitrageur's price and a contract price reflects owner‑specific disturbance or special value. It also notes that the planning permission context and contemporaneous expectation about whether apparatus would be removed are material to assessing real‑world development prospects and value.