OLUFEMI ADEMAYOWA JOSHUA v London Borough of Southwark
Decision date: 27 November 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 511 (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 case fixed compensation for compulsory acquisition of a one‑bed flat on the Aylesbury Estate, determining its open market leasehold value as at 7 May 2013 and the recoverable pre‑reference surveyor’s fees. The Tribunal found the flat’s value to be £129,000 and awarded recoverable pre‑reference surveyor’s fees of £3,500 plus VAT. The acquiring authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the reference 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
The judgment supports that on‑estate comparables may legitimately be used in valuing properties on an estate subject to redevelopment, but where evidence shows scheme blight an allowance should be made (10% was reasonable on these facts). Very historic comparables requiring long‑period indexation may be unreliable and capable of being rejected. Recoverable surveyor fees for pre‑reference work must be proportionate to the claim’s size and complexity and supported by clear evidence of the basis of charging.
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 notes record that a council’s prior acceptance of a blight notice does not alone conclusively establish blight if other evidence points against it. They also suggest that evidence of a post‑crisis niche buy‑to‑let market on a redevelopment estate must be robust before it can be treated as negating blight, and that work rendered otiose by a later change in expert approach may not justify full reimbursement.