David Haq v Eastbourne Borough Council
Decision date: 10 October 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 365 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned a claim for compensation under s584A Housing Act 1985 after Eastbourne Borough Council served prohibition orders on Flat 7 for crowding/space (HHSRS Band A). The tribunal held the relevant valuation date was 1 October 2009 (when the operative prohibition order took effect), found the flat's separate use had become immune from planning enforcement by the four‑year rule, and held that rule 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 excluded any increase in value because the use was detrimental to occupants’ health; accordingly no compensation was payable. No costs were ordered.
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’s ratio is that (1) the valuation date for loss under s584A is the date the prohibition order becomes operative; (2) an uninterrupted unauthorised change of use established for the requisite period under s171B can render the use immune from enforcement and thus relevant to valuation; and (3) an HHSRS category 1 (Band A) assessment can constitute prima facie evidence that the manner of use was detrimental to occupants’ health so as to engage rule 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and exclude any compensable increase in value.
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 suggested (obiter) that "detrimental" in rule 4 should be read to include the likelihood of harm as well as actual harm, that revocation or suspension of prohibition orders on humanitarian/compassionate grounds does not necessarily conflict with an HHSRS Band A finding, and that applications of rule 4 in crowding/space cases will be fact‑specific and uncommon.