BPP (FARRINGDON ROAD) LIMITED v BPP (FARRINGDON ROAD) LIMITED v CROSSRAIL LIMITED
Decision date: 23 June 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 195 (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 whether the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) could award costs in a reference under Schedule 5 to the Crossrail Act 2008 for temporary possession of land and whether such costs could form part of compensation. The Tribunal held that Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (including section 4) applies and that rule 10(6)(a) of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 covers proceedings for compensation arising from temporary statutory possession (exclusive possession), while rule 10(6)(b) (injurious affection) denotes conventional nuisance-type damage and does not cover authorised temporary possession. The Tribunal ordered Crossrail to pay the claimant’s costs of the strike-out application.
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 binding ratio is that where a statute applies Part I of the 1961 Act to disputes about temporary possession, section 4’s costs regime is engaged, and that the phrase “proceedings for compensation for compulsory purchase” in rule 10(6)(a) extends to proceedings for compensation arising from temporary statutory possession (rights of exclusive possession), whereas “injurious affection” in rule 10(6)(b) refers to damage caused by activity elsewhere and does not encompass authorised entry and use of the land.
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 noted (obiter) that background material from the Costs Review Group and Tribunal Procedure Committee informed but did not decisively fix the boundary between rule 10(6)(a) and (b), and that the duration of possession is not determinative of the characterisation for costs purposes (shorter and longer periods should be treated similarly).